This topic has been mentioned several times on other threads but I think addressing it specifically is a worthwhile endeavor.

Personally, I believe that regardless what the majority of citizens and politicians may desire, the 14th Amendment, the 2.5 inches of birth canal and a U.S. venue creates citizens.

I believe that even with fraudulent intent on the parents’ part, that fraud isn’t transposed to the child. The parents probably could be charged with a crime, though, and deported or incarcerated first, then deported. As cruel as that may be, I think it’s probably legal and would end vacation birthing and some intentional visa violations.

To my old-ass mind, the family members of that newly born child have no Constitutional right to immigrate or stay following anchor births.

Would an executive order, or better yet, a law by Congress barring the Anchor Baby path to green cards meet legal challenges?

My statements have been made.

From another thread with the basics of my position.

President Trump in issuing an executive order to re-write controlling S. Ct. precedent of the 14th Amendment is truly a tyrannical abuse of power.

Had President Obama or President Biden used an executive order to void Heller and McDonald the intellectually dishonest and hypocrites of the right on here would be shouting down such action. I would join. There would be no, “ I think he is wrong.”

Um, he can't overrule Supreme Court decisions with an EO. It's unconstitutional and an abuse of power to try.

An EO also can't overrule an act of Congress.

Sounds like Trump has his lawyers wrapped around his thumb. Look out for another round of disbarments.

Forget Law School, I know you could not go this on my rural elementary public school.

Thr sane kind of school the far right wants to kill off by giving their funding to private schools.

Judge,

I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the 14th Amendment was ever intended to convey citizenship on every child born of illegal immigrants who happened to be born in the US. The Amendment was intended to convey US citizenship on former slaves who were born here, but previously denied citizenship.

Rather inartfully drafted even considering the times, but that was the intent.

I have agree with David.

Maybe Trump is issuing the order to trigger the suit that will get this revisited by this SC.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Judge,

I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the 14th Amendment was ever intended to convey citizenship on every child born of illegal immigrants who happened to be born in the US. The Amendment was intended to convey US citizenship on former slaves who were born here, but previously denied citizenship.

Rather inartfully drafted even considering the times, but that was the intent.

I thought you right wingers favored strict construction of the Constitution as written, not as interpreted. I guess that doctrine only applies when it suits your interests.

quote:

I thought you right wingers favored strict construction of the Constitution as written, not as interpreted. I guess that doctrine only applies when it suits your interests.

It's always been that way with them.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Judge,

I respectfully disagree. I don't believe the 14th Amendment was ever intended to convey citizenship on every child born of illegal immigrants who happened to be born in the US. The Amendment was intended to convey US citizenship on former slaves who were born here, but previously denied citizenship.

Rather inartfully drafted even considering the times, but that was the intent.

I thought you right wingers favored strict construction of the Constitution as written, not as interpreted. I guess that doctrine only applies when it suits your interests.

Original “intent.”

Good for Trump
For any sane mind, it makes complete sense

Good for President Trump for blatantly violating the Constitution.

That is what one calls independent thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Good for President Trump for blatantly violating the Constitution.

That is what one calls independent thinking.

Original intent?

You mean like allowing states to regulate who and where a state’s citizen can possess a firearm. You are intellectually dishonest.

The 14th Amendment changed the Constitution.

The intent was those born in the United States subject to our federal law are citizens of both the state and federal government, and states could not take that away.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Maybe Trump is issuing the order to trigger the suit that will get this revisited by this SC.

That is not how to get it to the S. Ct.

The president has no business voiding S Ct precedent by an Eo.


You would not agree w a Dem president using an EO to void Heller and McDonald.


This has been back to the S. Ct., at least 3 times.

I’ll tell you what Justice Scilla said, “Amend the Constitution.”


Thst is the conservative thing to do. If the position cannot pass the muster for an Amendment then that is your answer.

It’s a different court and public opinion is with the POTUS on this. The SCOTUS just might change it’s position.

You do realize that the Supreme Court overruling prior Supreme Court precedent on nothing more than the make up of the Court is a bad thing right? Never mind, no you don't.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
It’s a different court and public opinion is with the POTUS on this. The SCOTUS just might change its position.

Public opinion tells us what rights we have under the Constitution.

All those firearms restrictions were passed by majorities.

See Mjines response. You are simply dishonest in your advocacy.

Again, you would not permit a president to void Heller and McDonald w an EO when the Court flips.


President Obama and President Biden explicitly refused to engage in such EO. Why? They understand the Constitution or at least care.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
You do realize that the Supreme Court overruling prior Supreme Court precedent on nothing more than the make up of the Court is a bad thing right? Never mind, no you don't.

Ferguson and brown have entered the conversation

"Mske up of the court" doesn't happen overnight, now, does it? There is this thing called time... i could link to a patented word salad on the passage of time.

Different courts are usually a full, if not two, generations apart from the next one...

Brown is post 14th Amendment.

Yes, both cases show the evolution of 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

The federal anti discrimination laws have also been held constitutional post Ferguson.

Beyond that, see my last reply to Dr. Easter.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Good for President Trump for blatantly violating the Constitution.

That is what one calls independent thinking.

Original intent?

You mean like allowing states to regulate who and where a state’s citizen can possess a firearm. You are intellectually dishonest.

The 14th Amendment changed the Constitution.

The intent was those born in the United States subject to our federal law are citizens of both the state and federal government, and states could not take that away.

never forget that your rulers will be the lawyers ...

Fed Judge just enjoined this calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Funny, I used those words.

The S. Ct., will not save this one.

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

The states - Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon - argued that Trump's order violated the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

"This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," the judge said.

From the news shows, it sounded like Trump was told that the amendment states under US law, and that because no one had challenged it legally, it might work.

Given the issues with illegal aliens and the fact that most all nations reserve citizenship to children of citizens, I don’t mind him trying it. Of course, even if it worked it would be a mess because these folks would be alternating between citizenship and illegal status depending on who is in charge.

I think the intent of the amendment was quite clear that it applied to slaves brought here, and the court expanded it beyond its legislative intent, but that’s water over the bridge now.

It should be addressed by constitutional amendment. Whether there is enough support for that is another question. I’d also like to see the amendment process used to remove dual citizenship.

As the judge indicates, there is no serious person who can cotton to this.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
You do realize that the Supreme Court overruling prior Supreme Court precedent on nothing more than the make up of the Court is a bad thing right? Never mind, no you don't.

Since when has righting wrongs become a bad thing?

quote:

I think the intent of the amendment was quite clear that it applied to slaves brought here, and the court expanded it beyond its legislative intent,

Exactly!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
As the judge indicates, there is no serious person who can cotton to this.

People said the same thing about Roe. It is now history.

. . . you must have missed the day in civics class when they discussed the notion of stare decisis. It has only been discussed as a basic precept of English common law since 1765. But it seems given some of your other views often expressed here that candidly you might have missed a whole semester or two of civics.

And since when has either side applied this if they could think up a way around it?

Since the court batted it down, and it has no real legal backing, I’m content that something was tried and we need to address it some other legal way.

How many of the ARA’s stunts would occur if strict attention to precedent had been applied?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . you must have missed the day in civics class when they discussed the notion of stare decisis. It has only been discussed as a basic precept of English common law since 1765. But it seems given some of your other views often expressed here that candidly you might have missed a whole semester or two of civics.

I don’t think the language of the 14th Amendment was originally intended to be all inclusive, but you have to say that the Amendment means something other than the plain and unqualified meaning to get to the original intent argument. I think that’s a bridge too far. So, like it or not, I believe we have birthright citizenship.

If you don’t like the current anchor baby pathway, within the Constitution is there a remedy?

The Congress has given the executive broad powers over visas and naturalization. Is there any legal proscription from deportation of any parent(s) who violate the terms of their visa (or lies in the application for it) or overstays, then forever barring the offending parent from legal immigration for that breach.
I guess what I’m saying is that the child has a citizenship right by the 14th Amendment but the child has no right to cause the U.S. government to give its parent a path to citizenship nor does the parent have any right to raise the child in the U.S. The U.S. is not separating the family because the parent has the right to take the newly minted citizen back home.

So, what do you think? Is there any Constitutional issue with an immigration EO or legislation that recognizes the child’s citizenship but bars the anchor baby path for the parents?

The S. Ct., has held that bring a parent is a fundamental right. Any law that restricts the fund right of being a paternity would have to survive strict scrutiny.

Rights attach based on the Constitution jurisdiction. That was established granting fundamental due process rights to non citizens in custody of the United States.


Therefore, those parents have a fundamental right to raise their child. I have concerns of allowing parents to remove a U.S. Citizen from the custody and jurisdiction of the United States. Obviously, US parents relocate to different nations with their children. However, those children gain passports, and their citizenship is not destroyed by relocation of parents. There is a process to ensure those children’s citizenship is protected.

Legislation that provides A visa process for those parents clearly defined when a parent visa shall be given, what conditions shall result in revocation and deportation, and appeals process first administrative and then the courts could survive scrutiny. I could support something like that details to be seen.


The removing parents from U.S. citizen- children and deporting the parent just because of they are undocumented/illegal status would not fly. The parent even a non citizen in the U.S. has fundamental due process and fundamental right to raise their child.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
And since when has either side applied this if they could think up a way around it?

Since the court batted it down, and it has no real legal backing, I’m content that something was tried and we need to address

it some other legal way.

How many of the ARA’s stunts would occur if strict attention to precedent had been applied?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . you must have missed the day in civics class when they discussed the notion of stare decisis. It has only been discussed as a basic precept of English common law since 1765. But it seems given some of your other views often expressed here that candidly you might have missed a whole semester or two of civics.

Many have expressly. I am not going to do your reading for you. Also, applying Justice Alito’s self proclaimed test to the Senate during confirmation would direct not overturning this precedent.

Of course, Justice Alito lied then.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
As the judge indicates, there is no serious person who can cotton to this.

People said the same thing about Roe. It is now history.

Actually, no. Roe was not the controlling case. That has been explained to you. The opinion even addresses it.

Yep, the new Conservatives. Let us use judicial acts to overturn nearly 200 years of individual rights.

Bottom line is the judge said the order was blatantly constitutional- and he’s right.

I agree but think the child’s right to be raised by its parents is not anywhere close to absolute. Children whose parents (even if citizens) who commit felonies don’t raise their children from jail.

Even naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship and be deported for conviction of crimes. I guess they have the choice as to whether to take their children (or a court could find that the child should remain for cause).

If it is (or is made) a felony to apply for a visa under false pretenses (or overstay a visa) and the penalty is incarceration, deportation and future visa bars (with due process protections) taking the process out of the administrative and into the criminal, what’s the difference in an anchor baby and lucky Luciano‘s children?

Ending the majority of anchor babies can be accomplished but I think Trumps first effort was a hamfisted mistake.

quote:

Legislation that provides A visa process for those parents clearly defined when a parent visa shall be given, what conditions shall result in revocation and deportation, and appeals process first administrative and then the courts could survive scrutiny. I could support something like that details to be seen.

I'm not sure I agree with LHeym that people who have flouted our immigration laws to sneak in and have a baby here should be given a path to citizenship.

Sorry, the Fourteeth Amendment's birthright citizenship clause gives no protection to aliens who are here illegally.

If they want to maintain the parent-child relationship, they can take the child with them when they leave or are deported, imho. When they become an adult, the US citizen can apply for a passport and legally enter the US.

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
I agree but think the child’s right to be raised by its parents is not anywhere close to absolute. Children whose parents (even if citizens) who commit felonies don’t raise their children from jail.

Even naturalized citizens can lose their citizenship and be deported for conviction of crimes. I guess they have the choice as to whether to take their children (or a court could find that the child should remain for cause).

If it is (or is made) a felony to apply for a visa under false pretenses (or overstay a visa) and the penalty is incarceration, deportation and future visa bars (with due process protections) taking the process out of the administrative and into the criminal, what’s the difference in an anchor baby and lucky Luciano‘s children?

Ending the majority of anchor babies can be accomplished but I think Trumps first effort was a hamfisted mistake.

quote:

Legislation that provides A visa process for those parents clearly defined when a parent visa shall be given, what conditions shall result in revocation and deportation, and appeals process first administrative and then the courts could survive scrutiny. I could support something like that details to be seen.

The Supreme Court in the 2010s found a fund right to be a parent and raise your child. The test for dent legislation infringing on that right is strict scrutiny.

And I did not say citizenship. I said a visa with clear legislative statements as to who qualifies and what shall be disqualifying or trigger deportation.

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment knew how to write the word "slaves" if they wanted to limit birthright citizenship to ex-slaves.

Instead they wrote, "all persons." As in:

"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."

Plain interpretation: "persons" is not synonymous with "slaves."

Trump has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution--only a day or two into his administration!

When I took pleas of non-citizens for some misdemeanors, the guidelines required me (before I accepted the plea) to inform the accused that his/her plea could affect the ability to immigrate . DUIs and domestic violence were two of them. Having an anchor baby didn’t trump the conviction. Biden didn’t enforce that policy but I see no reason why Trump can’t, even with a strict scrutiny standard. Particularly if there’s criminal fraud in the application, intentional overstaying a visa with fraudulent intent or illegal entry. And usually there is.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Trump has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution--only a day or two into his administration!

well, at least trump was officially in office, for less than 72 hours though, before the murmurs for impeachment begin --

was this in your daily talking points from your facebook group? or was it from bluesky ?


your team did such an amazing job, controlling and protecting the border -- you should be happy, gardener jimmie