Birthright Citizenship

I don't think it would need to be revoked. I think the most obvious answer is in the interpretation. Of course, that will be met with a legal challenge. Another solution could come through Congressional action, as the 14th Amendment leaves it to the Congress to enforce its provisions. That would be a better choice, I think. Of course, if the US were to change either its interpretation or enforcement of the 14th Amendment, it wouldn't affect anyone who had already received citizenship.

 

I could be wrong, but I don't think any country other than the United States still has birthright citizenship; I don't know this for a fact, though. It's a crazy idea and we're seeing the craziness of it.

 

As is commonplace these days whenever someone is opposed to something, you seem to be indicating that the law would be worthless unless it is one hundred percent enforceable.

Yet we have laws against murder despite the fact that these laws are not enforceable, as evidenced by the fact that people are still murdered and the murderers are not always apprehended and convicted. We have laws against theft despite the fact that a large number of thefts are successful, and thieves are not always apprehended and convicted. For God's sake, we even have speed limit laws despite the fact that almost no one drives the speed limit.

The executive order would be enforced in the same manner that the 14th amendment was enforced up until the 1960s when, contrary to the way in which it was intended, it came to mean that anyone who could manage to cross the border before giving birth was home free. I would imagine that illegals gave birth to children, giving false information to hospital personnel, and some of these were probably able to have these births registered with the state. Others weren't, and some of those who were able to get by were later found out when they were vetted for a government job or, perhaps even when they decided to run for elected office.

Today, in a time when state databases are connected to federal databases, and every child is issued a social security number at birth, fewer would get through than even fifty years ago.

Those who cross our border illegally and are apprehended could not use the birth of a baby for the purposes of chain migration. Some would slip through, others wouldn't, but that's the way that every law on the books is enforced.

 

Senator Graham is introducing a bill to end birthright citizenship by Congressional action, and if you read the above posts, you'll see that I have said that I would prefer it be done that way, as it would have a more lasting effect. Regardless, an executive order would have the effect of a law, albeit more prone to legal challenge. A for US vs. Wong Kim Ark, their situation was very much like that for which the 14th Amendment was enacted, which was to cover the children of slaves who were brought to the United States to work. As large numbers of Chinese people were brought here as cheap labor during this same time period, I can see why they might have believed that the 14th Amendment applied. The position of the Chinese in the late 1800s and early 1900s was very much like that of the black slaves. They were brought here for cheap (almost slave) labor. The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to people crossing our borders illegally, such as we are dealing with now. This was made clear in the Congressional record, a portion of which I posted above, and was not used as such until the 1960s.

Nevertheless, the 14th Amendment clearly leaves enforcement of the Amendment to Congress, and Graham's bill would not require an Amendment.

 

Do you think that means that our Congressional delegations are supposed to take the place of the Border Patrol or, in today's case, ICE? Of course not. Given that Congress is a lawmaking body, what do you suppose they meant? Enforcement can mean actually performing the menial tasks involved in carrying it out, but that clearly wasn't the intent. To enforce something can also mean to administer, manage, control, conduct, direct, boss, officiate, preside over, watch over, supervise, superintend, oversee, look after, and more. Hopefully, we can agree that the authors of the 14th Amendment did not envision members of Congress stretched out across America's borders, physically checking for citizenship papers of everyone who enters, or residing in hospitals throughout the land, checking on the citizenship status of every pregnant woman who enters. If we can agree on this, perhaps we can agree that it was intended to mean that Congress would administer, manage, control, conduct, and direct the enforcement of the 14th Amendment.

I believe that the Supreme Court would decide that it mean that Congress was to oversee the enforcement of the Amendment and, in doing so, Congress would decide who it applies to and who it does not apply to, subject to appeal to the Supreme Court, and I doubt that the Supreme Court would rule that anyone who can sneak into the country or force their way in by force can stay.

 

Apparently, you know more about it than Congress. You might want to give them a call because you could save them a lot of time. Some of those idiots still think that they are lawmakers and that they have something to say about the laws they make. They should realize that if a Supreme Court rules in favor of one person that it automatically means that anyone else who wants to be a citizen can, even when the situations are entirely different.

I don't hold great hopes that Congress will solve the problem but their ineffectualness will have everything to do with the fact that many of them are in favor of open borders and an overrunning of our political system by people who intend to change our system of government into what they are supposedly fleeing from, and nothing to do with actual facts.

First, the Supreme Court ruling you cited does not automatically apply to everyone else who ever wants to be an American citizen. Even if it did, which it doesn't, that still wouldn't tie the hands of Congress or the president. What we're facing today is far different than what the Supreme Court ruled on in the case you cited.

Do you believe that every Supreme Court ruling is settled law? I don't think you'd even want every Supreme Court ruling to be settled law.

I have to get to work, so I'll get back to this maybe tomorrow to see if there's anything new that I feel like replying to, but I probably won't be in the mood to get involved in a circular argument that goes nowhere.

I don't really care what you choose to believe about birthright citizenship. As long as the conversation entertains me, or if I can see a point to it, I'll continue it, but when it starts to feel like I'm doing more work than you are, and that anything I say is going to be summarily dismissed, then I'll look for something more productive to do with my time.

You seem to want to ignore most of what I say, asking for one thing after another, as if you want to run out the clock or something, while the truth is that whatever you or I say about it, or what we believe to be the case, won't make one bit of difference, so our discussion is purely for the entertainment value.