She had been a resident, having been born and raised in the U.S. He was still American by birth and could have gotten an Indonesian passport as well, depending on Indonesian laws. This was supposed settled in the late 1800s, with United States v Wong Kim Ark. When the Supreme court struck down such laws as being UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Afroyin v Rusk See above. No record needed, as she would have been required to renounce her citizenship per laws put in place in the 1940s. Dual citizenship is allowable by law. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/456 Laws forbidding dual citizenship struck down, so it was judicial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 Birthright citizenship
I'm not going to waste a whole lot my time arguing it. I tired of that when it still mattered. My point is that it wasn't even allowed to be argued by anyone who could do anything about it then, when it mattered, and it's not as clear as you'd like it to be. When laws change, they are not automatically made retroactive. If you were convicted of marijuana possession before marijuana became legal, your conviction stands. People who went to prison for violating prohibition laws were still convicts. Dual citizenship was not legal until 1967. He could not have been both a citizen of Indonesia and of the United States.
It is crystal clear to me. The referenced laws did not change, SCOTUS found them to be unconstitutional and thereby are retroactive. If it was a federal crime, then it still stands and the person remains in jail. As states made marijuana legal, they also made available the means to be released from prison and have prior convictions expunged from records or changed to misdemeanors. As stated earlier... federal law is still federal law.
If birthright citizenship were to be revoked by Congress or executive order tomorrow, those who have already received citizenship in that manner would continue to be citizens.
Just like when marijuana laws were enacted, they were not retroactive to past tokers. Penalty laws cannot be retroactive. Forgiveness laws can be... to time served, etc. It would take a constitutional amendment to alter the birthright citizenship debate. It makes for campaign fodder to fire up the base on both sides of the aisle and after the election it will quietly go away. An executive order would be nearly impossible to implement. Imagine proof of citizenship being required to issue a birth certificate! Imagine requiring pregnant women to carry a passport to be admitted to a hospital! OMG!
Don't misunderstand, Harry. I am not saying that Obama was ineligible to serve as president - only that it's not as simple as you might think, and that it was kept simple only because of political maneuvering through political correctness. The cases you referred are not clear as they might pertain to Obama. One involves the revocation of citizenship because someone voted in a foreign election. That's not the case here, only that neither he or his mother could have simultaneously been citizens of both countries, as dual citizenship was not allowed in the US at the time. To answer your new question, it would not take a constitutional amendment to alter the birthright citizenship problem, but that is being discussed in another thread.
In Louisiana, a couple must produce a certificate of marriage in order to give a last name to a newly born child, and in Alabama a tenant of mine had to give her visa number to the utility department to prove her legal standing in the U.S. Note: Louisiana is the only state I know of with a “bastard law” and will not allow a new born to carry the father’s last name without proof of marriage. Reason I know? My son’s mother and I were not married when he was born and even though his mother wanted to use my last name, it was against the law. So, all I am getting at is that it isn’t too far fetched nor improbable that in the future, one “might” have to provide some proof of citizenship at the maternity ward especially if the parents do not speak English.
Anything is possible in the future, but the probabilities seem remote. An executive order can be enacted at the federal government level, with an executive order to stop doing something... being obviously the easiest. Even altering who can and who cannot enter the country at legal checkpoints can be done, even though court challenges will always ensue. That is because it is federal employees involved in that process. Congress has enacted laws regarding status of alien individuals within the U.S. with illegals numbering in the millions, proving to be a challenge. Congress has always been loathe to abdicate its constitutional authority regarding citizenship as embodied in Article 1, section 8, paragraph 4. The closest they came was with the 1995 immigration act (revised 2009), which provided for qualifying states and local jurisdictions to effectively deputize law enforcement personnel to administer federal immigration law. 287g Even with that law providing local jurisdiction access, there has been minimal participation and currently is only at the Jail Enforcement level. As you can see from the link only one Alabama Jurisdiction currently is involved Etowah County Sheriff's office. States view immigration as a federal issue and do not participate for several reasons, one of which is lack of federal money to support such federal activities. Which is not surprising as the federal government (congress) has mandated many programs, without regard to financial capability of the states. The federal government despite all the political rhetoric believe immigration is a federal issue, notwithstanding the total lack of addressing these issues. Into this void a president is attempting use an executive order. Great! Will every state fall into line, set up systems to determine legality of aliens giving birth... NO? Think California, Illinois, New York, etc. These are states that would fight every step of the way against an executive order, even if signed by Obama. Then there are the states that would rail against said federal encroachment. While anything is possible, some things are highly improbable.
That which is logically improbable is still, by degrees of attitude, closer to possible than impossible. That my friend, is what the underlying meaning of hope is.
State Of New York et al v. United States Department of Commerce et al starts Monday. Your definition of hope might well hinge on this case, which will inevitably make it to SCOTUS. If a very simple question on a census form is allowed, then the needle of hope might move in your favor, although the furor over such a very simple question should be indicative of the uphill battle. Basically, that simple question is via the federal government on a census form that is well within their jurisdiction. However multiple states, cities, etc. are quite enraged and will go to the mat to prevent the question from being asked. That very simple question... Are you a citizen? Am I expected to believe that multiple states will roll over and play dead when it comes to a citizenship question of their birth certificates?
Apparently this is all a tactic that Trump is using to get the question into the courts. Birthright citizenship has never been decided for people who are in the country temporarily or illegally. He wants to have the question decided before immigration law can be seriously addressed. Much of what the media criticizes is actually a tactical move on a question of law pr politics. He wants the citizenship question to become a political question as well, so it can be addressed by Congress as well as the court system.
Like that sanctuary city executive order? https://thehill.com/latino/399917-c...-to-withhold-funding-from-sanctuary-cities-is Congress was all over that one as well...https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/87 By my count that is 661 days with nothing else taking place on the matter in a republican house, with a republican senate and a republican president. This congress ends in about a month... don't bet the farm on anything happening before then. That bill dies at the end of this session and will need to be a new proposal for the 116th congress. Who is taking bets?
I'm talking about what can be done. When our "Republican" Congress includes people like Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Lisa Murkowski, and Paul Ryan, I don't expect much from them, which is why an executive order may be required.
I think Corker and Flake will be gone, and Ryan is stepping down as Speaker even if the Republicans hold the House. All four of those mentioned were Never Trumpers, so I assume they all voted for Hillary Clinton. Watching national polls this morning, the Senate looks good for the Republicans, and apparently the House will be determined by how many voters vote for Republican House candidates when they vote for Republican Senate candidates. We'll see on Tuesday....