Trump announces intent to end Birthright Citizenship

JoeMorgue

Self Employed , Remittance Man
JoeMorgue
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
48,325
Location
Florida
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html

President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections
Click to expand...

Okay the baggage of Trump and who and what he is will overshadow any actual discussion, I have zero idea if from a Constitutional level this is something would actually fall under Executive Orders, and if Trump actually means to follow through with this or is just spouting off his normal nonsense for attention.

But having said all that I've always had a real hard time with Jus Soli as a concept. It's just... weird.

And it's something, I feel the need to point out, that none of the amazing, perfect European Utopias the American Left will not stop creaming themselves over how we should be more like have.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I saw that a few minutes ago.

I don't know if automatic citizenship at birth is a good idea or not, but isn't that a constitutional right? How can he just exec order it away?
 
Political stunt. The 14th amendment is quite clear about birthright citizenship. Any attempted enforcement of this order would not survive the judicial system.

I'm sure this kind of posturing plays very well for the anti-immigrant base though.

I could easily see Trump mulling it over in public for an extended period of time simply to gin up his base. It doesn't really matter if it is destined to fail, it's performance, not policy.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I'm sure this kind of posturing plays very well for the anti-immigrant base though.
Click to expand...

No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?
 
JoeMorgue said:
No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?
Click to expand...

to some degree...
but the difference is that the US is and has always been a country made up of immigrants and their descendants, a fact the Constitution acknowledges
- unlike Trump or Republicans.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?
Click to expand...

Many of them are, or at least have very vocal anti immigration factions.

There are at least two separate discussions to be had between whether birthright citizenship is a good policy and what it means for Trump to make this announcement now.

You can't pretend that they're the same question and the latter should be considered devoid of the legal reality of a constitutional amendment, the history of citizenship rights in our country and in particular Trumps history and motives.

The comment you're replying to is addressing that latter question but you're treating it as though its the same thing as the former.
 
Trump making his own changes to the US Constitution via an Executive Order reminds me think of all of those stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans who so often criticized Obama as being an "Imperial President".
 
JoeMorgue said:
No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?
Click to expand...

It's anti-immigration bait for the base because it has no chance of actually changing policy. Trump is lying if he says that it is within his power to overrule the constitution by presidential edict. It's virtue-signaling.

i don't know how the law works in Europe, but I would suggest that a policy that would create multi-generational populations of stateless, illegal aliens with little chance of becoming legal, full citizens a bad piece of public policy. I'm going to hazard a guess that such a policy is not the situation in most of these countries, otherwise they would be in a state of crisis.

Frankly, Europe's history of immigration policy is irrelevant. The US's legal history of this is quite clear and a change would be a radical shift.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay the baggage of Trump and who and what he is will overshadow any actual discussion...
Click to expand...

tenor.gif
 
JoeMorgue said:
[qimg]https://media1.tenor.com/images/f59d48f20907d137a3c6aaba9ab31f7e/tenor.gif?itemid=3495399[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I mean, do you want to talk about Trumps statement divorced from what it means in context?

If you would like to talk about birthright citizenship in the abstract you could just say so.
 
JoeMorgue said:
[qimg]https://media1.tenor.com/images/f59d48f20907d137a3c6aaba9ab31f7e/tenor.gif?itemid=3495399[/qimg]
Click to expand...

CaveMonster said it best. There's no point in talking about the actual policy of birthright citizenship in this context because Trump is not seriously attempting to engage in policy discussion. His announcement could not have the effect of changing this policy. Surely all of the tremendous legal resources available to the President have informed him so. It's purely cynical political theatre.

I am actually curious about discussing such a policy, but given the above, doing so here would be woefully off-topic.

Cavemonster said:
There are at least two separate discussions to be had between whether birthright citizenship is a good policy and what it means for Trump to make this announcement now.

You can't pretend that they're the same question and the latter should be considered devoid of the legal reality of a constitutional amendment, the history of citizenship rights in our country and in particular Trumps history and motives.

The comment you're replying to is addressing that latter question but you're treating it as though its the same thing as the former.
Click to expand...
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's anti-immigration bait for the base because it has no chance of actually changing policy. Trump is lying if he says that it is within his power to overrule the constitution by presidential edict. It's virtue-signaling.
i don't know how the law works in Europe, but I would suggest that a policy that would create multi-generational populations of stateless, illegal aliens with little chance of becoming legal, full citizens a bad piece of public policy. I'm going to hazard a guess that such a policy is not the situation in most of these countries, otherwise they would be in a state of crisis.

Frankly, Europe's history of immigration policy is irrelevant. The US's legal history of this is quite clear and a change would be a radical shift.
Click to expand...

It smacks more of dictator signalling than virtue signalling. This is the kind of thing that empowers his base with that good ol' fascist approach to governance that they seem so enamored of.
 
OMG, Trump said something stupid that he can't legal do in an interview. There is no way that trump could do this legally without congress and probably now way they could do it without an amendment.

Here's what the constitutions says on the matter:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
There are some folks who think the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" bit means the children of illegals are not actually citizens, that's a minority opinion to be sure. It seems like it was clearly meant to address the children of diplomats and what not.

I think you could probably make an argument against jus soli for the children of illegal immigrants that isn't just being a dick. It would be pretty hard to argue against jus soli for the children of legal residents.

SuburbanTurkey said:
It's anti-immigration bait for the base because it has no chance of actually changing policy. Trump is lying if he says that it is within his power to overrule the constitution by presidential edict. It's virtue-signaling.
Click to expand...
Never discount shear ignorance when Trump is concerned. Its absolutely possible he hasn't spent 2 minutes trying to see if he could do this and just spouted of in an interview.
 
Last edited:
If Trump issues an executive order and the USCIS goes along with it jumping up and down going "But... but... you can't do that! It says so right here!" won't do anything.

At this point we should be realizing that Trump can do anything he wants if nobody stops him.
 
JoeMorgue said:
CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html



Okay the baggage of Trump and who and what he is will overshadow any actual discussion, I have zero idea if from a Constitutional level this is something would actually fall under Executive Orders, and if Trump actually means to follow through with this or is just spouting off his normal nonsense for attention.

But having said all that I've always had a real hard time with Jus Soli as a concept. It's just... weird.

And it's something, I feel the need to point out, that none of the amazing, perfect European Utopias the American Left will not stop creaming themselves over how we should be more like have.
Click to expand...

The principle is apparently common in both Americas, where almost every nation supports jus soli without restriction. (Trump has claimed that only the U.S. has such a policy.)

See the wikipedia article on "jus soli" for a map of nations with unrestricted jus soli.

In any case, I'm flummoxed who has told him that an executive order could override the 14th Amendment, unless maybe someone thinks that the use of the word "persons" means citizens or something.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If Trump issues an executive order and the USCIS goes along with it jumping up and down going "But... but... you can't do that! It says so right here!" won't do anything.

At this point we should be realizing that Trump can do anything he wants if nobody stops him.
Click to expand...

The moment it negatively impacts someone with a birthright claim to citizenship, it will go to court and be reversed. I can't see the SCOTUS, or even any federal court, ruling otherwise.
 
If Trump believes it is the correct interpretation, it would be a violation of the oath not to do it. He has an oath to the Constitution. He can't enforce laws he knows violates the Constitution.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No country in Europe, Asia, Oceania, or Africa (outside of, I think, two exceptions in Africa) practice unrestricted Jus Soli and very few have it all in any concept.

Are they all anti-immigration?
Click to expand...

A policy to get rid of jus soli by executive order appeals to anti-immigrant sentiments. That doesn't mean that all nations who don't have jus soli are anti-immigrant (though it does mean that their citizenship policies are more restrictive in this respect).
 
The Great Zaganza said:
to some degree...
but the difference is that the US is and has always been a country made up of immigrants and their descendants, a fact the Constitution acknowledges
- unlike Trump or Republicans.
Click to expand...

The right discussed here is certainly in the Constitution, but only since 1868.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Political stunt. The 14th amendment is quite clear about birthright citizenship. Any attempted enforcement of this order would not survive the judicial system.

I'm sure this kind of posturing plays very well for the anti-immigrant base though.

I could easily see Trump mulling it over in public for an extended period of time simply to gin up his base. It doesn't really matter if it is destined to fail, it's performance, not policy.
Click to expand...

I forget now who it was on MSNBC last night -- probably presidential historian Michael Beschloss -- who pointed out that some presidents emphasized style over substance and some substance over style, but Trump is unique because they are one and the same.

ETA just so JoeMorgue doesn't throw a debate card: I don't have a problem with birthright citizenship. I have enjoyed the benefits of being born in the USA by random chance; why should I resent someone else doing the same?
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The moment it negatively impacts someone with a birthright claim to citizenship, it will go to court and be reversed. I can't see the SCOTUS, or even any federal court, ruling otherwise.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry didn't we just go through "Trump's packing the courts, the Right can do anything it wants and nobody can stop them?"
 
ahhell said:
OMG, Trump said something stupid that he can't legal do in an interview. There is no way that trump could do this legally without congress and probably now way they could do it without an amendment.

Here's what the constitutions says on the matter:

There are some folks who think the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" bit means the children of illegals are not actually citizens, that's a minority opinion to be sure. It seems like it was clearly meant to address the children of diplomats and what not.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that explanation. It is, of course, odd, since it suggests that illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for local violations. Surely anyone who can be arrested for shoplifting is subject to U.S. jurisdiction?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh I'm sorry didn't we just go through "Trump's packing the courts, the Right can do anything it wants and nobody can stop them?"
Click to expand...

There's a difference between the courts nibbling around the edges of rights and outright reversing of bedrock legal principles. I don't think there is a single SCOTUS judge that thinks trump can wholesale rewrite the 14th amendment by presidential edict. These Federalist society judges might be very conservative, but they aren't monarchists.
 
Belz... said:
I'd be surprised if SCOTUS could just willy-nilly ignore a constitutional amendment, though, regardless of how packed it is.
Click to expand...

Either we're through the "Trump is the ultimate evil and can and will do anything" Looking Glass or we aren't.

If Trump's packed SCOTUS can revoke Roe V Wade and round up Muslims for Death Camps it can ignore Jus Soli.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
i don't know how the law works in Europe, but I would suggest that a policy that would create multi-generational populations of stateless, illegal aliens with little chance of becoming legal, full citizens a bad piece of public policy. I'm going to hazard a guess that such a policy is not the situation in most of these countries, otherwise they would be in a state of crisis.
Click to expand...

Yes rather exactly like has happened in Japan.
 
Belz... said:
It was wrong when the black man did it.
Click to expand...
I don't believe conservatives thought the executive orders from President Obama were wrong because the black man did it. It was a because a democrat did it skin color had (almost) nothing to do with it. Do you really believe it was because of skin color?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Either we're through the "Trump is the ultimate evil and can and will do anything" Looking Glass or we aren't.

If Trump's packed SCOTUS can revoke Roe V Wade and round up Muslims for Death Camps it can ignore Jus Soli.
Click to expand...

We're not quite through the looking glass where Trump can now do anything he pleases, and I'm not sure I've heard anyone say we are in such a situation except as a hyperbolic expression of dismay at how much Trump CAN get away with.

When we worry about erroding Roe v Wade, we can talk about exactly how that might happen and how that can be legally feasible. We can point to the state level laws either on the books or waiting in the wings and see the legal precedent by which the SC has the power to uphold them.

When we look at Trump's travel ban, immigrant detainment and the fact that Korematsu is still the law of the land we can see how oppressive policies against immigrants including Muslims could happen. We're not at death camps now and no one is saying we are.

Yes, we can worry about his policy and power without imagining that power is unlimited.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't believe conservatives thought the executive orders from President Obama were wrong because the black man did it. It was a because a democrat did it skin color had (almost) nothing to do with it. Do you really believe it was because of skin color?
Click to expand...

I think it was the case for a lot more people than you'd like to admit.
 
JoeMorgue said:
At this point we should be realizing that Trump can do anything he wants if nobody stops him.
Click to expand...
This


SuburbanTurkey said:
The moment it negatively impacts someone with a birthright claim to citizenship, it will go to court and be reversed. I can't see the SCOTUS, or even any federal court, ruling otherwise.
Click to expand...
Can't you? You don't think Kavanaugh, for example, would follow the party line? I have little doubt that the decision would not be unanimous. Some, but not a lot.

I guess that's really the test of where we are now. I would not so blithely dismiss the possibility. I would not have thought that Trump could get away with 3/4ths of what he's already done, but he has.
 
William Parcher said:
Delivering substance and style simultaneously is the pinnacle of human achievement. Beschloss would need to explicitly explain how it's bad when Trump delivers that.
Click to expand...

Because he was basically saying that there is only Trump's style, that those waiting for the substance should already be disappointed. There will be no "pivot" because Trump has no place to pivot to; there's just his continuing reality TV show.

(ETA: BTW, "style" and "substance" are not necessarily compliments, even if Trump had both. We've had presidents whose style was obnoxious and abrasive to many, and we've certainly had a few whose substance wasn't up to the job.)
 
Last edited:
So the US Constitution must be added to the vast list of things Trump is too stupid to understand.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Either we're through the "Trump is the ultimate evil and can and will do anything" Looking Glass or we aren't.

If Trump's packed SCOTUS can revoke Roe V Wade and round up Muslims for Death Camps it can ignore Jus Soli.
Click to expand...
Not all of those outcomes are equally plausible.

Repeal of Roe v Wade conceivable. Can't tell which is less likely among the other two options, but I'll say death camps for muslims. Both are ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom