This idea appears to be gaining ground: http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/no-fourteenth-amendment-not-authorize-birthright-citizenship/ https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d8b35f3c2062 https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf https://www.nationalreview.com/2015...p-reform-it-without-repealing-14th-amendment/ ....so maybe there is a chance of some progress on fixing what should of been fixed 50 to 100 years ago.
From what @Ken Anderson has posted, citizenship would still be granted to legal aliens and others in the country legally, since they would be under the jurisdiction of the state in which they reside. The only ones to be excluded by executive order would be the children here illegally, since they would not be under the jurisdiction of any state.
An executive order is a little bit trickier than you might like it to be made out. Yes, it’s a given that executive orders apply only to those things federal e.g. federal workers, federal highways, the military etc. Here’s the clutch: American Citizenship is not a state to state determination but a Federal determination but let’s leave that aside for a moment and pretend that the states have something to do with it. Even if the individual states have something to say about American citizenship, an executive order is like the sword of Damocles looming over the heads of those institutions which take federal subsidies, grants, use federal banking etc. There are very few hospitals, clinics, doctor’s offices who do NOT enjoy some kind of federal help. Do note: The 55mph speed limit set by Jimmy Carter was an executive order and was enforceable by the Federal government via state to state federal highway subsidies. Call it blackmail if you will, but it works. In the case of children being born in the U.S. to illegals, an executive order is only a first step and can be sent to federal courts for constitutional interpretation but whilst that is happening, it gives congressmen like Graham time to introduce a bill to congress. In this case, the bill would be then sent to the Supreme Court for an immediate judgement on it’s constitutional legality, passed back to congress for a vote, a presidents signature and bingo...it’s law. Note: Whilst all of the primary work is being done, the executive order is still effective and is enforceable until it is mandated to be unconstitutional in a federal court which.....can be immediately appealed for reinterpretation by either side. An Executive order of the kind we’re debating is more of a stall than anything else because of it’s limited ability but has some sting to it which is all we, who oppose the anchor baby concept, want until a full fledged law prohibiting the concept is in place.
Beware: I've gotten wind that some folks on this forum get really out of sorts when history gets revised, so it is important to quickly correct this statement. Nixon proposed a law, in 1973, to reduce the speed limit to 50 for cars and 55 for trucks and buses. He signed into law the 55 mph speed limit passed by congress on 1-2-1974... https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg1046.pdf Now onto the debate... the executive order regarding sanctuary cities (13768) has been ignored by nearly all and Congress hasn't done anything to instill the fear. This threat of executive order, real or imagined, is simply heat of the campaign rhetoric. It is intended to fire up the base and may actually do just that. The reality is nothing will happen either way. Immigration has become such favorite talking point on both sides of the aisle, that neither side is willing to make any sacrifices towards ending the problem.
Ah, it was Nixon and not Carter so I do stand corrected BUT.........it was an executive order to begin with which was the main objective of my arguement. Check it out if you will. Note: I also take history very seriously and when I state something off the top of my head (which is a rarity) and am found incorrect, I am thankful. *In the fall of 1973, in response to the OPEC oil embargo, President Nixon issued an executive order mandating a 55 mph national maximum speed limit. The following January, Congress made it official and passed a "temporary" one-year continuation of the limit. And so began a 22-year odyssey where reality and rational public policy never crossed paths... www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2009/07/27/55-mph-speed-limit-is-unenforceable-and-counterproductive Now, your prediction that nothing will happen either way is indeed something that I cannot see in the near or far future. Thus far, President Trump has done extremely well dealing with his own campaign promises and I see no reason why he will not continue to progress and complete those same promises. The only foreseeable way the dems can get their way regarding anchor babies is if they take the senate or the bill doesn’t make the Supreme Court Unlike most presidents I remember in my own history, (since Eisenhower) only one or two had accomplished the standards they projected in their own campaigns as much as D. Trump and no, Obama wasn’t one of them.
Yes, he did, and it was done by Congressional action. That's probably the real reason that Nixon was impeached.
No, I only “pounce” on trolls who report that they have no need to provide proof of what they write. Notelably, as you well know, the transcript that you brought to bear was in rebuttal to one such person who would not, under any circumstances provide the necessary proofs for his statements. Thus far, even you have brought forward some good testimony for your beliefs and for that I can find no fault. You called me on a mistake and I admitted to it even though the premise of my statement was correct. Historically, Nixon was the culprit (not Carter) for making an Executive Order which mandated the 55 mph speed limit for which, I also added the necessary research.
I never liked the idea of Birthright Citizenship nor do I now. I much prefer more difficult means to obtain Citizenship.
Sounds okay to me...I can't think of any good reason why citizenship should be denied to legal aliens and others in the country legally.
Map of the birthright countries. I believe Germany, England, and Australia have recently made some changes, and I tried to understand the complicated rules in those 3 countries, but many historical changes, and grandfathering clauses, makes it very complicated. I gather there is some kind of years of residency required of non citizens, before a baby born to them in those countries becomes an automatic citizen. There have been some studies in the U.S. that show that lack of a birthright provision creates an underclass of residents, similar to the Dreamers. Kids who start their lives behind the 8 ball, so to speak, just because they are punished for decisions they had no part in. And parents of a child who is a citizen by birth tend to assimilate better, and are more likely to consider the U.S. their home country. Although I don't care much for scientific studies concerning social behavior, because there are too many variables, that just makes common sense to me. So I tend to come down on the side of leaving the 14th Amendment (and its current interpretation) alone.