100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Donald Trump vs U.S. Supreme Court | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
From CBS News:
President Trump, seeking to limit immigration to the U.S., is set to challenge a 150-year-old constitutional standard that anyone born in America is an American citizen. Mr. Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he plans to sign an executive order to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." If Trump wants to be impeached, then he should do what he threatens to do. In the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen even if that person's parents are citizens of another nation. So, Trump doesn't have the authority to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." Granted, Trump most-extreme supporters won't care if he tries to violate a SCOTUS ruling. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 10/30/18 04:00 PM
|
|
From CBS News: President Trump, seeking to limit immigration to the U.S., is set to challenge a 150-year-old constitutional standard that anyone born in America is an American citizen. Mr. Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he plans to sign an executive order to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." If Trump wants to be impeached, then he should do what he threatens to do. In the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen even if that person's parents are citizens of another nation. So, Trump doesn't have the authority to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." Granted, Trump most-extreme supporters won't care if he tries to violate a SCOTUS ruling. I have always felt the Constitution was ambiguously written in many places. this being one. In the clause of citizenship there are TWO conditions. being born here AND being under the jurisdiction of the US. Now, how people interpret that second part or if they even consider it is grey enough area for debate. To me, if all the second clause means is that you are born in the US, there is no need to have it there. It seems like it is a second and unique condition, which maybe takes into account the circumstances by which that birtth happened in the US. If parents were just traveling, or visiting, it certainly wouldnt seem sensible that their child then has a different citizenship than they. If they are military on a base, or if they are present illegally, it seems the same, that the 'jurisdiction' portion may be interpreted to exclude those situations. But Im not on the superme court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you on this. Not many countries do that. What possessed them to come up with that, is something that should be examined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From CBS News: President Trump, seeking to limit immigration to the U.S., is set to challenge a 150-year-old constitutional standard that anyone born in America is an American citizen. Mr. Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he plans to sign an executive order to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." If Trump wants to be impeached, then he should do what he threatens to do. In the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen even if that person's parents are citizens of another nation. So, Trump doesn't have the authority to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." Granted, Trump most-extreme supporters won't care if he tries to violate a SCOTUS ruling. I have always felt the Constitution was ambiguously written in many places. this being one. In the clause of citizenship there are TWO conditions. being born here AND being under the jurisdiction of the US. Now, how people interpret that second part or if they even consider it is grey enough area for debate. To me, if all the second clause means is that you are born in the US, there is no need to have it there. It seems like it is a second and unique condition, which maybe takes into account the circumstances by which that birtth happened in the US. If parents were just traveling, or visiting, it certainly wouldnt seem sensible that their child then has a different citizenship than they. If they are military on a base, or if they are present illegally, it seems the same, that the 'jurisdiction' portion may be interpreted to exclude those situations. But Im not on the superme court. I suspect that the "under the jurisdiction of the United States" part, was directed at making sure that we weren't declaring the children of foreign ambassadors to be automatic Americans. Foreign dignitaries and representatives are not "under US jurisdiction." This is just my guess, however. But yes, dodo_David, I think you are correct that Trump can't legally do as he proposes. My guess, is either that this is yet another example of how much Trump doesn't know about the US Constitution, or it is yet another example of how he is "negotiating" for additional votes for the GOP next week, by making yet another promise that he is not empowered to keep. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 This is classic entertainment at it's best! Doubtful, Trump will issue such an E.O.. But, even if he does, and even if SCOTUS overturns it, Trump won't be the first POTUS in recent years, to have an E.O. overturned. Best of luck, on that whole 'impeachment thing'. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would stop illegals from coming here popping out a baby to get on the welfare dime. It would be a good move for our country. The supreme court could do a good thing here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled on this topic, doing the "originalist" thing that Trump supporters want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you on this. Not many countries do that. What possessed them to come up with that, is something that should be examined. Well, I believe it was originally declared under times of segregation and discriminatory institutions, which didnt allow immigrants to be citizens or slaves and their children. It was rightly declared that one cannot simply deny someone their citizenship based on their race if they are born here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From CBS News: President Trump, seeking to limit immigration to the U.S., is set to challenge a 150-year-old constitutional standard that anyone born in America is an American citizen. Mr. Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he plans to sign an executive order to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." If Trump wants to be impeached, then he should do what he threatens to do. In the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen even if that person's parents are citizens of another nation. So, Trump doesn't have the authority to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." Granted, Trump most-extreme supporters won't care if he tries to violate a SCOTUS ruling. The Conservative leaning Supreme Court would side with the President on this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would stop illegals from coming here popping out a baby to get on the welfare dime. It would be a good move for our country. The supreme court could do a good thing here. Maybe, but the problem here is that if a President commits an unconstitutional act, and the Supreme Court backs them on it because they like the idea, they will have effectively overturned the Constitution and their own role in supporting Constitutional governing. For what you want to see happen, the correct process is to propose a Constitutional Amendment to change the existing rules to what you prefer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Trump because of the situation. What should be do? Send illegal mom's home without their children? Or reward them with some foodstamps and Medicaid? Scholars have different interpretation of it. We need to protect our country. Send everyone that is here illegally back with whatever children the had on the tax payer dime. Then let them apply to come here legally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From CBS News: President Trump, seeking to limit immigration to the U.S., is set to challenge a 150-year-old constitutional standard that anyone born in America is an American citizen. Mr. Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he plans to sign an executive order to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." If Trump wants to be impeached, then he should do what he threatens to do. In the SCOTUS case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen even if that person's parents are citizens of another nation. So, Trump doesn't have the authority to "remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S.-soil." Granted, Trump most-extreme supporters won't care if he tries to violate a SCOTUS ruling. The Conservative leaning Supreme Court would side with the President on this issue. I seriously doubt that the current SCOTUS would side with Trump. |
|
|
|
|
