Trump to end birthright citizenship

[JoshCrow]

"I love the Constitution! True story!"

What a joke to have this going on after all the lecturing from Republicans about Obama and Democrats not caring about the Constitution. Really now. We may witness an executive order that flat-out redefines who is a citizen.

Executive overreach much?

[Seriati]

It's an interesting one, and I agree seems a complete executive overreach.  He is relying on the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and claiming that it's been misinterpretted for years:

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.

The bolded clause is a mandatory clause, it's triggered with "and" but what does it mean?  Trump's asserting that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to get where he's going.  But that's a mixed bag in my view, there are limits on what the US can do to non-citizens, which is part of why they get deported more often than prosecuted.  Is that enough though?

EDIT - I think his case is much stronger in the context of birth tourism, less strong but still strong for anchor babies where the immigrant is pregnant when they arrive, and least strong for kids borne to long time resident aliens.

[Grant]

HERRREEE we go again.   

The Idiot President says something stupid, that he cannot do, that thrills a small subset of his base, people crap all over themselves, and proceed to spend days crapping themselves all over television, which thrills an even bigger subset of his base.  You've made this man into a genius.  He's manipulating you. 

Executive Orders cannot amend the Constitution.  Everyone who took 5th grade civics should know this. 

By the way, accusations of hypocrisy grant the initial argument.  So to call the Republicans hypocrites for this, you have to admit that Democrats do need not care for the Constitution.  Any argument that you make defending said Democrats and their care for the Constitution can likewise be applied and used by those defending Republicans.  You have created a catch-22, mutual destruction argument.  Either both Republicans and Democrats don't care about the Constitution, or they both do selectively. 

[Grant]

Trump's asserting that illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to get where he's going.

I cannot find an emoji that even remotely reflects the face I am making. 

https://media.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/giphy.gif

https://media.tenor.com/images/fffa4a5c233b88ca5edee2b061659d6b/tenor.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/TdcGtvQdbVlEQ/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/F8bo1LU5U5ApG/giphy.gif

https://media1.tenor.com/images/e25de6a171c9e84e68ed8cf677e25686/tenor.gif?itemid=4246032

[rightleft22]

The Idiot President says something stupid, that he cannot do, that thrills a small subset of his base, people crap all over themselves, and proceed to spend days crapping themselves all over television, which thrills an even bigger subset of his base.  You've made this man into a genius.  He's manipulating you

Not that this has anything to do with the topic. But I have no doubt that Trump laughs at and despises both his opponents and followers.  I suspect he thinks both are stupid and he is right

[Seriati]

Executive Orders cannot amend the Constitution.  Everyone who took 5th grade civics should know this. 

Grant, can't (won't) follow the emojis links so not sure what you were trying to convey.

However, the point of the argument is that it's not an amendment of the Constitution.  It's an interpretation of what a clause means.  Pretty much, if he did it, it would immediately be halted by a "friendly" district court in the ninth circuit, and ultimately appealed to the SC where they would very likely declare that the historical interpretation is correct and overrule the executive order.

Out of curiosity, what do you think "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means?

EDIT:  It's also interesting that anyone who believes in a "living Constitution" would have a problem with this.  They'd almost have to concede it's legal, just fight that it's immoral.

[rightleft22]

so what's the point/intention behind the administration doing this?

[Seriati]

so what's the point/intention behind the administration doing this?

It's a win-win (other than the political cost).  If Trump is upheld he solves an immigration problem in a way that appeals to his base, and a lot of angry Americans.  If he loses, it almost has to be on a strict reading of the Constitution that limits future executive abuse.  Either way it's something his base wants.

[TheDrake]

I think the point of this is that at some point recently, someone on TV railed about anchor babies and speculated that an executive order could stop it. Then Trump decided that sounded like a fine idea and declared his intention to do it.

[Seriati]

It also kind of forces Democrats to come out and defend automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants (which is unpopular with voters, but beloved by elites).

[rightleft22]

either way a win win for Trump

The Democrats really need to take a hard look at themselves and the way they are failing in countering the Republicans - I have a feeling there going to fail in the midterms

[TheDeamon]

About a week ago 538 was giving 1 in 5 odds that Republicans keep the House, and forget the odds in the Senate but they were fairly certain Republicans would keep it in their Control.

Many Democrats likely consider failing to take the Senate a "failure" condition that they are pressed to avoid. The House race is more interesting and very hard to completely predict. Enough House races are close enough that if historically demonstrated "sampling errors" repeat themselves, as happened in 2016, the Republicans can keep the House as well.

[Seriati]

About a week ago 538 was giving 1 in 5 odds that Republicans keep the House, and forget the odds in the Senate but they were fairly certain Republicans would keep it in their Control.

Are you sure about that?  I've been looking fairly regularly and it seems to me that the odds on the House have been 1 in 7 for a while, while the Senate has been 5 out of 6.

[Seriati]

Here's a little interpretation on the clause from the WSJ:

The 1898 Wong Kim Ark case stresses that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. should be read broadly. “The real object of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution,” the court said, “in qualifying the words, ‘All persons born in the United States’ by the addition ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words…the two classes of cases—children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State.”

Which kind of makes it clear that the basis for "subject to jurisdiction" is that the children are not subject to the jurisdiction of another country.  Again, that seems an easy slide for birth tourism, and slightly more difficult one for citizens of another country who cross while pregnant to have a citizen anchor baby, and a really far step to get to children that were conceived and born here to illegal parents.

Interestingly, the citation to this runs in most places as support that there's no chance the interpretation is correct, notwithstanding that it literally points out people born in this country that are not entitled to be citizens.

[Wayward Son]

It also kind of forces Democrats to come out and defend automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants (which is unpopular with voters, but beloved by elites).

Thank God we have some who want to defend our Constitution.

[Seriati]

I agree, now if you could get the Democrats on board to defend the Constitution I'd be excited. 

[Grant]

Out of curiosity, what do you think "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means?

Personally, I believe "subject to the jurisdiction therof" means any person that the Federal or State governments have jurisdictional authority over.  If you can be arrested for murder by the FBI or any State Police, you are under the jurisdiction of the United States.  This, IMO, means everyone except foreign dignitaries here in diplomatic jobs. 

I understand it originally was put this way to mean everyone except Native Americans, who were not under US Jurisdiction while living in Tribal Territory, and still enjoy some degree of sovereignty inside the United States.  Of course, we made all the Indians citizens of the United States in 1924 with the Indian Citizen Act.  It was specifically stipulated that they were made citizens since they were born within the United States. 

[Crunch]

Executive overreach much?

Is this a thing now, people worried about executive overreach? I haven’t seen that in nearly 10 years. I bet we’ll see mass consternation over the national debt again soon.

[Crunch]

Out of curiosity, what do you think "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means?

Personally, I believe "subject to the jurisdiction therof" means any person that the Federal or State governments have jurisdictional authority over.  If you can be arrested for murder by the FBI or any State Police, you are under the jurisdiction of the United States.  This, IMO, means everyone except foreign dignitaries here in diplomatic jobs. 

I understand it originally was put this way to mean everyone except Native Americans, who were not under US Jurisdiction while living in Tribal Territory, and still enjoy some degree of sovereignty inside the United States.  Of course, we made all the Indians citizens of the United States in 1924 with the Indian Citizen Act.  It was specifically stipulated that they were made citizens since they were born within the United States.

Looking at this, it’s not as clear as I originally thought. There are other federal court rulings shortly after the 14th amendment passed that specifically call out that being born on US soil is not sufficient to confer citizenship. I still think it’s pretty weak and don’t see such an EO surviving.

Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the 14th Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.

Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard explained, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”* Thus, “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.

So:

.As mentioned above, there was almost unanimous agreement among its framers that the amendment did not extend citizenship to Indians. Although born in the U.S., they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe-by-tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become a citizen. Thus Congress used its legislative authority under Section Five of the 14th Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A constitutional amendment is no more required today than it was in 1923.

So an EO may be too far but it seems that Congress can do fairly easily.

[D.W.]

Executive overreach much?

Is this a thing now, people worried about executive overreach? I haven’t seen that in nearly 10 years. I bet we’ll see mass consternation over the national debt again soon.

Several of us on both sides at this board have been nervous / outraged about this across both parties being in power. 

Though the statement may be generally true I think we set the bar a tiny bit higher here Crunch. 

[Crunch]

Obama issued an executive order expanding immigration laws. The bar was set precisely where Trump is aiming. Your rules, ain’t it great?

[D.W.]

Hold up... Are you saying that if you support "your" president (read as "POTUS of your party") then you have to support and claim ownership for every aspect of their platform and their actions while in office?

Just wana be crystal clear on what you're sayin' there Crunch.   

[Crunch]

No.  I’m saying we’ve already set the bar on EO’s and immigration. Obama set that precedent and the laft embraced it. It should surprise nobody that such a precedent would be applied again.

[TheDrake]

Isn't there a difference between establishing residency rules and alerting citizenship rules?

[Wayward Son]

Executive overreach much?

Is this a thing now, people worried about executive overreach? I haven’t seen that in nearly 10 years. I bet we’ll see mass consternation over the national debt again soon.

I agree, now if you could get the Democrats on board to defend the Constitution I'd be excited. 

Thank you both for admitting that truth, which everyone but Republicans have known for years now: that Republican morals only apply to Republican issues, and are thrown out the window the second it is convenient.

I will remind you of this the next time anyone complains that Democrats don't respect the Constitution, are overreaching the President's authority, or are busting the budget and increasing the deficit:  "Hey, we're no worse than Republicans!" 

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Trump is overreaching his authority and trying to trample the Constitution as if he were a king.  And it's good that someone is defending it, even if it is some "hypocritical" Democratic elites, since Republicans obviously don't give a hoot about it now.

(It always makes me laugh how Conservatives complain about "elites," and tell them that they don't know what they're talking about and should just shut up and listen to Conservatives who know better than them.  Makes you wonder if they know what the word "elite" means...  )

[Fenring]

I will remind you of this the next time anyone complains that Democrats don't respect the Constitution, are overreaching the President's authority, or are busting the budget and increasing the deficit:  "Hey, we're no worse than Republicans!" 

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Trump is overreaching his authority and trying to trample the Constitution as if he were a king.  And it's good that someone is defending it, even if it is some "hypocritical" Democratic elites, since Republicans obviously don't give a hoot about it now.

I think you're mistakenly attributing whataboutism to this. Whataboutism is when someone commits a crime or does something unethical, and the defence is "but the other guy did it too!" In the case of executive overreach what's on the table is what is or isn't an accepted, or authorized, use of executive power. If a previous President used executive power in a way that was accepted at the time, that sets a precedent as to what uses of Presidential power are legitimate or not. For Trump to "do the same thing" doesn't disqualify it out of hand just because you don't like it, if the precedent now says that this is a legitimate use of executive power. It's illegitimate to pooh pooh it only when you don't like the specific policy being pushed by its use. This is exactly what the conservative posters here were saying all along during Obama's Presidency when they were complaining about overreach. Whether or not they're correct, they're at least consistent on that point.

I'm not even weighing in here about whether what Trump is saying is 'like' what Obama was doing or not. I'm just saying that "whataboutism!" isn't an appropriate answer here.

[Seriati]

Executive overreach much?

Is this a thing now, people worried about executive overreach? I haven’t seen that in nearly 10 years. I bet we’ll see mass consternation over the national debt again soon.

I agree, now if you could get the Democrats on board to defend the Constitution I'd be excited. 

Thank you both for admitting that truth, which everyone but Republicans have known for years now: that Republican morals only apply to Republican issues, and are thrown out the window the second it is convenient.

I'm going to quote myself for you.

It's an interesting one, and I agree seems a complete executive overreach. 

So are you "calling me out" because I think executive overreach is always executive overreach?

Whether its Constitutional is far more an academic question than you want to believe, there are reasonable arguments on both sides.  However, the vast weight of history is not in favor of an executive action here (of course it wasn't when Obama created DACA either).  Maybe you can make the case that the Constitution requires birthright citizenship, the SC hasn't apparently settled it, the framers didn't apparently believe it, and Congress has apparently thought it wasn't obligated to honor it in the past (including the recent past).

But hey, we all know the Constitutional standard that you're applying - you think it should be unConstitutional ergo it is.

[D.W.]

If anyone's been a watchdog here for executive overreach it's Seriati.  A lot of what Obama did made me nervous on that front, but I don't for a second believe this is a partisan issue for Seriati, or that it being Trump's turn now, he's any more happy about it than when it was Obama's.

[Wayward Son]

For Trump to "do the same thing" doesn't disqualify it out of hand just because you don't like it, if the precedent now says that this is a legitimate use of executive power.

That's the thing, Fenring: Republicans never acknowledged that it was a legitimate use of executive power.

They have continually criticized Obama's actions as being illegitimate.  They have taken it to court.  They have characterized the Democratic party as ignoring the Constitution (as Seriati did).  They have taken the position that they are the defenders of the Constitution, and not those despicable Democrats.  Can you point out any instance until now when Republicans admitted that Obama had that authority, or haven't fought against it?

But now, when their fearless leader announces he will do something similar, suddenly it has become a precedent.  After having fought against and spat on it for so long, suddenly it is a "long accepted" right of the executive office when their guy does it, and no one can say otherwise. 

This is what the Republican party has been doing, again and again and again, over the past couple of years.  Pointing at actions they reamed Obama for as justification for what they want to do.  As if the Democrat party, which they have vilified for years, is suddenly the standard of American principles.  And not the core values of the Democrat party, like justice, fairness, belief in science and such, but the parts that they vilified, rightly or wrongly.

Sorry, Fenring.  It is complete "whataboutism," at the most basic, elementary-school level.

In fact, I would argue that it is worse.  Because while Obama may have overreached his authority over Congress in not enforcing immigration laws for DACA immigrants, Trump is overreaching his authority over the Constitution itself, which is far worse by any standard.

[Wayward Son]

So are you "calling me out" because I think executive overreach is always executive overreach?

To quote you again, Seriati:

It also kind of forces Democrats to come out and defend automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants (which is unpopular with voters, but beloved by elites).[/quote[

You're basically saying here that only "elites" would defend the Constitution when it comes to children of illegal immigrants.  Which means that you don't really care about it when it comes to parts that you don't like, or perhaps parts that would make Democrats less popular.  You can tell me which one.

Either way, if you think defending the Constitution is unpopular, it seems to imply that you are not terribly offended by the executive overreach that created the situation.

[Seriati]

Are you suggesting that having an opinion on why Trump is doing something and the likely consequences of that action in anyway undercuts having an opinion that the action is executive overreach?

Would saying that when Obama imposed DACA he forced Republicans to attack a very popular deferral for children who were born in this country, undermine that it was executive overreach?

[Seriati]

Pointing out that Trump and Obama are acting the same way is not an endorsement of Trump and a criticism of Obama, it's a criticism of both.  The idea that you can justify one and not the other is itself another problem that pointing it out addresses.

[D.W.]

The only diff I see is what was pointed out previously.  EO that congress can overrule is one thing.  An EO that stands up as an interpretation / reinterpretation of the Constitution is a different animal, in terms of how hard it is to change.

The only thing that kept me from getting overly worked up about Obama's EOs (those that appeared potential overreach) was that they all seemed to be something Congress COULD address and reclaim any ground the executive was attempting to claim.

Maybe this is the same thing?  I'm neither a constitutional law expert nor do I play one on tv...

[Fenring]

That's the thing, Fenring: Republicans never acknowledged that it was a legitimate use of executive power.

They have continually criticized Obama's actions as being illegitimate.  They have taken it to court.  They have characterized the Democratic party as ignoring the Constitution (as Seriati did).  They have taken the position that they are the defenders of the Constitution, and not those despicable Democrats.  Can you point out any instance until now when Republicans admitted that Obama had that authority, or haven't fought against it?

But now, when their fearless leader announces he will do something similar, suddenly it has become a precedent.  After having fought against and spat on it for so long, suddenly it is a "long accepted" right of the executive office when their guy does it, and no one can say otherwise. 

I think you mistake me. I'm not saying it's accepted as a use of power by Republicans once Obama does it, or even once Trump does it. I'm saying that it more or less sets a legal precedent regarding whether acts from that office will be allowed to stand or whether they will be struck down. So if Republicans were upset about Obama overusing executive power, part of that concern was that in theory this permanently extends the powers of the office regardless of who occupies it. So again, it's not whataboutism to say that Obama contributed to expanding the powers of the office, and then to say that Trump is now doing it because Obama expanded them. Actually, that's a completely consistent line of reasoning. It doesn't mean that what Trump is doing is good, but it (at least potentially) means that he can only do it because of Presidents like Obama who gave him that power. Do you see the difference? It's not about justifying one by decrying the other; it's about tracing the source of how it could happen at all.

Yes, Republicans may have a double standard about what is good and what is bad; fine. But that's not what's at issue right here, because what a President can or can't do isn't dictated by the opinions of Republicans who make posts on the internet. It's dictated by the relationship between the three branches of government, and the more that relationship is distorted and nonfunctional the less anyone's opinion about it is relevant: it's a structural issue, and by extension a legal issue. So even if a particular Republican might be two-faced about policy, that doesn't fly in the face of the claim that Trump's use of executive power may possibly be traced back to Obama's use of it. I mean, we could go even further back than that and argue that Obama in turn was only able to use executive power as he did because of how Bush 43 abused his power and turned the government upside down. I would totally concur with that line of reasoning, btw, and if seen in this way executive overreach won't look nearly as much like a partisan issue.

[TheDrake]

I think FDR let EO regarding citizenship off the chain when he removed all the rights of citizenship from native born Americans of Japanese ethnic descent. Trump can only dream of rounding up native born Muslim citizens and putting them in tent cities.

[cherrypoptart]

Until the Supreme Court makes a decision on this specific issue of birthright tourism and birthright illegal invasion, we can't say for sure if Trump is violating the Constitution or defending it. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is right and the 14th Amendment was never intended to allow the abuse of our sovereignty and reward the violation of our laws and borders, then Trump will be proven to be the greatest defender of the Constitution of both this as well as the last century. Of course, if the Supreme Court rules the other way, then that settles that. Our Constitution was meant to encourage people to break our laws, cross our border illegally, and be mightily rewarded for it. So be it.

[Wayward Son]

So if Republicans were upset about Obama overusing executive power, part of that concern was that in theory this permanently extends the powers of the office regardless of who occupies it. So again, it's not whataboutism to say that Obama contributed to expanding the powers of the office, and then to say that Trump is now doing it because Obama expanded them.

That would work, Fenring, if Obama was the one who greatly extended the powers of the executive order.  But he really didn't.  Abraham Lincoln used an executive order to suspend habeas corpus and implement the Emancipation Proclamation.  FDR (as TheDrake mentioned) used it to enact the New Deal reforms and inter Japanese.  Obama's little order of not going after certain illegal immigrants was peanuts compared to that--or compared to rewriting the 14th Amendment. 

It has nothing to do with Obama expanding the power of the executive order.  It has to do with justifying Republican actions, and blaming Democrats, plain and simple.

[Wayward Son]

Of course, if the Supreme Court rules the other way, then that settles that. Our Constitution was meant to encourage people to break our laws, cross our border illegally, and be mightily rewarded for it. So be it.

Ooooohhhh.  Scaaarrry!

Happy Halloween to you, too! 

[Crunch]

Pointing out that Trump and Obama are acting the same way is not an endorsement of Trump and a criticism of Obama, it's a criticism of both.  The idea that you can justify one and not the other is itself another problem that pointing it out addresses.

QFT

[cherrypoptart]

Trump and other conservatives pointed to a 1993 speech by former Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who argued “no sane country” would grant citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.

“If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this country provides,” Reid lamented. “That’s a lot of services.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-dismisses-century-constitutional-scholarship-bid-end-birthright-citizenship-154902986.html

I'm looking forward to the Supreme Court deciding this issue. It's interesting how many people seem to just assume that the current Supreme Court will decide against Trump. So far he's won more than he's lost on immigration issues that have gone there.

[TheDeamon]

I think you're mistakenly attributing whataboutism to this. Whataboutism is when someone commits a crime or does something unethical, and the defence is "but the other guy did it too!" In the case of executive overreach what's on the table is what is or isn't an accepted, or authorized, use of executive power. If a previous President used executive power in a way that was accepted at the time, that sets a precedent as to what uses of Presidential power are legitimate or not. For Trump to "do the same thing" doesn't disqualify it out of hand just because you don't like it, if the precedent now says that this is a legitimate use of executive power. It's illegitimate to pooh pooh it only when you don't like the specific policy being pushed by its use. This is exactly what the conservative posters here were saying all along during Obama's Presidency when they were complaining about overreach. Whether or not they're correct, they're at least consistent on that point.

I'm not even weighing in here about whether what Trump is saying is 'like' what Obama was doing or not. I'm just saying that "whataboutism!" isn't an appropriate answer here.

Pretty much my take on it. "Yup, its an executive overreach, much like a lot of what Obama did was. It's bad regardless of who does it. But ain't it fun when you're on the receiving end?"

The other other side of it is much of Trump's "overreach" on Executive power currently lies in the realm of theoretical in that he is making claims that he could do X or Y, but as he hasn't YET done X or Y it isn't much of an issue.

That precedents already exist for a number of things on his "list" of things he intends to do, just adds to the "and we've been wanting to put measures in place to stop this, permanently, for some time now. So, are you simply upset because it is Donald Trump doing it, or are you upset because of the Constitutional implications?"

So long as we're convinced the answer is "because Trump" then the response is going to continue to be a proverbial yawn.

[D.W.]

The other other side of it is much of Trump's "overreach" on Executive power currently lies in the realm of theoretical in that he is making claims that he could do X or Y, but as he hasn't YET done X or Y it isn't much of an issue.

That precedents already exist for a number of things on his "list" of things he intends to do, just adds to the "and we've been wanting to put measures in place to stop this, permanently, for some time now. So, are you simply upset because it is Donald Trump doing it, or are you upset because of the Constitutional implications?"

Pandering to excite his base with no intent to really push through on this? 

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

 

[Fenring]

That would work, Fenring, if Obama was the one who greatly extended the powers of the executive order.  But he really didn't.  Abraham Lincoln used an executive order to suspend habeas corpus and implement the Emancipation Proclamation.  FDR (as TheDrake mentioned) used it to enact the New Deal reforms and inter Japanese.  Obama's little order of not going after certain illegal immigrants was peanuts compared to that--or compared to rewriting the 14th Amendment. 

It has nothing to do with Obama expanding the power of the executive order.  It has to do with justifying Republican actions, and blaming Democrats, plain and simple.

I wasn't weighing in on whether the claim is correct that "Obama set the precedent." I'm just saying what the argument is on its face. I know you don't believe the good faith version of the argument and that you think they're making up the objections about Obama to justify what their guy does. But their statements over time have lined up consistently, and that's all I'm pointing out.

[Wayward Son]

I wasn't weighing in on whether the claim is correct that "Obama set the precedent." I'm just saying what the argument is on its face. I know you don't believe the good faith version of the argument and that you think they're making up the objections about Obama to justify what their guy does. But their statements over time have lined up consistently, and that's all I'm pointing out.

Sure, technically I suppose you could say they are criticizing both guys (although cherry wouldn't be surprised, and would actually be rather pleased, if the Supreme Court sided with Trump--something I don't recall him suggesting when Obama was President ).  But when one criticism sounds like:

"OMG! HE'S BREAKING THE CONSTITUTION! HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY!  WHY AREN'T YOU JOINING US IN CALLING FOR HIS IMPEACHMENT!  OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T LOVE AND RESPECT THE CONSTITUTION!!"

and the other sounds like:

"He's just like Obama.  If you have a problem with it, why weren't you complaining about Obama?"

somehow the "criticism" doesn't exactly sound equal, especially when latter is more blatant than the former.   Which is why I find it hard to attach the same word to both "criticisms."

And while you could find their statements lining up with criticizing all executive overreaches, they also line up even better with criticizing Democratic overreaches and improprieties far more than Republican.

[rightleft22]

Watched a good discussion on the CBC National
Two Republican and and Two Democrat strategists and a moderator that asked questions, without editorial, just questions
There was no yelling or talking over each other.

On the subject of birthright citizenship and the caravan no one defended Trumps rhetoric and they all agreed that it was unlikely that Trump had the authority to do what he said he would do.
The Republicans pointed out that the majority of its supporters see the issue as being about "something" being wrong with the immigration laws. What was motivating the supporters was that something was wrong not on any actual policy to fix it. The Democrats failed to look pass Trump the man - IMO the Republican won the debate

What I notice was that neither party was talking about ways in which to address the laws or even if any party was going to try. You can build walls, deploy troops but nothing changes the laws. When or if the caravan arrives and people claim refugee or whatever status they enter into that legal que

Anyway I'm doing a disservice to the conversation. I was just impressed that it was a conversation.

[cherrypoptart]

The five conservatives on the Supreme Court may be torn between conflicting ways of deciding the meaning of the 14th Amendment based either on original intent or the words themselves as written. It's hard to imagine the original intent included rewarding and encouraging invasion or having a Chinese lady, or a North Korean lady, or a Russian lady, as nice as they all may be, flying in to have a baby and flying back out the next day and having that baby be a U.S. citizen without any understanding of our customs or language and a possessing a complete loyalty to China, or North Korea, or Russia, or where ever. So original intent would definitely be on Trump's side. However, the words themselves, as written, can certainly be interpreted to mean that birth tourism and invaders plopping out U.S. citizen babies are legit. The words don't specify otherwise, at least.

On the other side, fortunately for the four liberals on the court, there is no need or inclination to concern themselves with such tedious deliberations. They all, but especially the Notorious Ruth "the Constitution means whatever I say it means" Ginsberg, know what they want to happen and simply torture the Constitution to say whatever they want it to say until it literally screams for mercy. Literally.

Trump's strategy here is pretty obvious. He just wants to get the issue settled by the Supreme Court, once and for all. There's nothing to lose by having the Supreme Court make a decision since the worst that could happen is the status quo is maintained. And there's a pretty good chance now with five conservatives on the court it could go in Trump's, and America's, favor.

[yossarian22c]

Trump's strategy here is pretty obvious. He just wants to get the issue settled by the Supreme Court, once and for all. There's nothing to lose by having the Supreme Court make a decision since the worst that could happen is the status quo is maintained. And there's a pretty good chance now with five conservatives on the court it could go in Trump's, and America's, favor.

I don’t think it is in America’s interest to create a class of stateless children within our boarders.

[cherrypoptart]

They wouldn't be stateless. They would be citizens of the same country as their parents. Just like with most of the countries of the world.

Now if Trump did win and the Supreme Court ruled that children of illegals and children of tourists are not automatically U.S. citizens just because they are born here with neither parent an American citizen or legal resident, what happens to the children who under the old misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment already have their American citizenship? I would imagine that they'd be grandfathered, but maybe not. If the Constitution were amended then they would be grandfathered unless the new Amendment specified otherwise but if the Supreme Court rules that the law was misapplied so they never actually were American citizens that would certainly be a real mess and I suppose it could result in stateless people if their parents' countries don't recognize their citizenship because it was assumed they had American citizenship and they can't have both. They'd almost certainly be grandfathered though. And going forward it would be the same as it is almost everywhere else. Only 30 out of 196 countries offer birthright citizenship and the move has been, unless I'm mistaken, more toward taking it away, like Ireland did, than countries without it granting it so if the Supreme Court looks to international law as a guide like they did for gay marriage it would be against birthright citizenship for those just visiting and for criminals trying to game our system and take advantage of our generous nature.

[TheDeamon]

They wouldn't be stateless. They would be citizens of the same country as their parents. Just like with most of the countries of the world.

Now if Trump did win and the Supreme Court ruled that children of illegals and children of tourists are not automatically U.S. citizens just because they are born here with neither parent an American citizen or legal resident, what happens to the children who under the old misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment already have their American citizenship? I would imagine that they'd be grandfathered, but maybe not.

I imagine they'd be grandfathered because that's the common law practice, and that's what existing precedents would indicate. They were granted citizenship under the legally valid practice if the time, so their citizenship is valid until such time that they reject it.

If the Constitution were amended then they would be grandfathered unless the new Amendment specified otherwise but if the Supreme Court rules that the law was misapplied so they never actually were American citizens that would certainly be a real mess and I suppose it could result in stateless people if their parents' countries don't recognize their citizenship because it was assumed they had American citizenship and they can't have both. They'd almost certainly be grandfathered though.

If a constitutional amendment specifically revokes citizenship, there isn't aything SCotUS can do. Agreed on the "mess" being people born in the window of such an Executive Order being issued and/or Congress enacting a law, and ultimately SCotUS issuing its ruling.

If an EO, or statute is passed ending the quasi-"Birthright" Citizenship for the children of foriegn nationals (I call it quasi, because my children DO have a "birthright" to US Citizenship at present seeing as I'm a US Citizen, and what Trump is talking about doing doesn't change that--and another example of "Fake news"/Media Spin at play), I would expect it to only be valid from that date forward, meaning those who abuse the existing interpretation before then get "grandfathered" under the old interpretation.

The ONLY retroactive law change that could happen is Congress retroactively enacting to law to grant "Birthright" citizenship in the aftermath of all of this(or SCotUS vacating a law dis-allowing it). Barring of course the very unlikely outcome of a Constitutional Amendment moving it out of the reach of even Congress.

[Seriati]

That would work, Fenring, if Obama was the one who greatly extended the powers of the executive order.  But he really didn't.  Abraham Lincoln used an executive order to suspend habeas corpus and implement the Emancipation Proclamation.  FDR (as TheDrake mentioned) used it to enact the New Deal reforms and inter Japanese.  Obama's little order of not going after certain illegal immigrants was peanuts compared to that--or compared to rewriting the 14th Amendment. 

Anything prior to FDR is effectively meaningless on this point.  FDR expanded executive authority more than all Presidents before or since.  I'm heck, just think of his creation of the administrative state.  He single handedly moved the power to make laws (regulations) and judge compliance with the (ALJ's) to the executive branch.  Effectively ending the separation of powers.

However, prior to Obama those administrative agencies were largely believed to be constrained by the bounds of Congress and ultimately subject to the judiciary.  Obama broke even that with his executive orders whereby he created an immigration status that is directly contrary to the laws as established by Congress, solely on his authority, that so far the courts have not finally ruled on, but they have enjoined the power of the next President to unwind.  Effectively, Obama created supra-executive authority actions.

Couple that with the establishment of the CFPB, which is designed to be exempt from the control of Congress - by any means including the budget - and exempt from control from a one term President and you get a completely gross expansion of the executive authority.

People like to play silly games and say Obama used executive orders "less than" other Presidents, or lump in executive orders that are directly tied to a Presidents executive authority with those that are not, but in this case, Trump's "plan" while completely radical, may actually be inside the bounds of the authority Obama established with his DACA order, and his DAPA order (which was largely identical and ruled unConstitutional).

It has nothing to do with Obama expanding the power of the executive order.  It has to do with justifying Republican actions, and blaming Democrats, plain and simple.

You can literally go back in time to the threads, when I flat out told you that supporting Obama's expansion of executive authority was foolhardy as you may not like how the next President uses it.  You had no issues with it, when you assumed the next President was going to be Hillary or someone like her.  This is the bed you made by only believing principals "matter" when they help your team.