Agreed. It's all about legality. If you're here legally and have a child no problem. If you're not then sorry. This would prevent a lot of the incentive of people entering illegally and risking their safety doing so.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

. It would be one thing to say that, going forward, are going to construe the 14th amendment as only granting citizenship to children of American citizens and of permanent resident (legal) aliens,

---

This is exactly what the Trump executive order does. It's not trying to take away anyone's citizenship.

---

But, as I recall, his executive order only purports to do so prospectively (or with minimal lookback). The court, in construing the 14th amendment, doesn't have that option.

It seems to me that a large percentage of the electorate (Democrats and Republicans) would approve some kind of deal where we adopted that interpretation going forward, but that would probably require a constitutional amendment.

ts5641 said:

---

Agreed. It's all about legality. If you're here legally and have a child no problem. If you're not then sorry. This would prevent a lot of the incentive of people entering illegally and risking their safety doing so.

---

Well, this and free healthcare and social services freebies…..

Hold up now!

Quote:

---

The court, in construing the 14th amendment, doesn't have that option.

---

This is YOU putting a constraint on the Court that does not exist in their eyes.

I GUARANTEE you that if this case is heard on the merits at SCOTUS, you will hear the wise Latina and non-biologist argue just like you are. "Oh what about the people that came here in 1940? Won't someone think of those grandchildren!??!?!?"

The Trump Executive Order does not contemplate removing citizenship for anyone! Its a scare tactic pushed by the Left. Don't fall for it and aid in those distortions!

Im Gipper said:

---

Hold up now!

Quote:

---

The court, in construing the 14th amendment, doesn't have that option.

---

This is YOU putting a constraint on the Court that does not exist in their eyes.

I GUARANTEE you that if this case is heard on the merits at SCOTUS, you will hear the wise Latina and non-biologist argue just like you are. "Oh what about the people that came here in 1940? Won't someone think of those grandchildren!??!?!?"

The Trump Executive Order does not contemplate removing citizenship for anyone! Its a scare tactic pushed by the Left. Don't fall for it and aid in those distortions!

---

Citizenship isn't determined by executive orders. It's determined by the constitution and Acts of Congress. No president can change citizenship for entire classes of people by mere executive order. In a technical sense, I think the Trump administration would probably argue that they aren't trying to change citizenship law, just supplying an accurate interpretation. Unfortunately, you can't say that the 14th amendment means one thing to one group of people, based upon when they entered the US illegally, and something else to those who came at a later time. If you say that children born to foreigners in the US, who came to the US after a certain date are not citizens, then the same must hold true for those who are in the same boat, but came at an earlier date.

If you study the decline of Roman empire you realize that the two biggest factors affecting its decline was 1) too much spending across the empire (mostly military in nature) and 2) an ever-expanding definition of who could be considered a citizen.

The US is making both of these errors.

twk said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

But, as I recall, his executive order only purports to do so prospectively (or with minimal lookback). The court, in construing the 14th amendment, doesn't have that option.

---

---

---

Why would you think this? This is ridiculous on its face.

So, when Roe v Wade fell, many states kept their abortion laws on the books, although no states tried to enforce them. Then, SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, which was about construction of the actual constitution, not an amendment.

States didn't suddenly go after all of the abortion Doctors that were performing abortions against the official laws of the state. That would be just as ridiculous as your argument above.

Plus, the process from revoking citizenship is entirely different than the process of granting citizenship. You can't revoke citizenship without a lawsuit. SCOTUS has been very stringent on allowing this to happen, and has typically required clear and convincing evidence of Fraud.

You are completely talking out of a sphincter than no one wants to listen to, and you should drop making this argument, because you are spreading something between misinformation and a lie.

BusterAg said:

---

twk said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

But, as I recall, his executive order only purports to do so prospectively (or with minimal lookback). The court, in construing the 14th amendment, doesn't have that option.

---

---

---

Why would you think this? This is ridiculous on its face.

So, when Roe v Wade fell, many states kept their abortion laws on the books, although no states tried to enforce them. Then, SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade, which was about construction of the actual constitution, not an amendment.

States didn't suddenly go after all of the abortion Doctors that were performing abortions against the official laws of the state. That would be just as ridiculous as your argument above.

Plus, the process from revoking citizenship is entirely different than the process of granting citizenship. You can't revoke citizenship without a lawsuit. SCOTUS has been very stringent on allowing this to happen, and has typically required clear and convincing evidence of Fraud.

You are completely talking out of a sphincter than no one wants to listen to, and you should drop making this argument, because you are spreading something between misinformation and a lie.

---

So, when did the government "grant" you citizenship? Unless you are naturalized, it didn't. Folks who are born in the US aren't "granted" citizenship, it's an attribute. You either have it or you don't. You don't have to revoke citizenship for someone who never had it, and if the court were to conclude that children of illegal aliens are not citizens, that would not be a revocation of citizenship, but merely an interpretation of the law. Maybe they would go rogue and venture into policy making and say they aren't going to apply that ruling to anyone born before the date of their opinion, but that would be completely unmoored from a legal standpoint.

The Roe v. Wade analogy is a poor one. Abortion is a one time act. It's either legal at the time it happens or it isn't. Unless you are a naturalized citizen, citizenship is an attribute that you acquire by birth (and the argument here is exactly who acquires it by birth). Totally different.

You can only lose your citizenship through three process: Renunciation, Denaturalization, or Expatriation. All three take court proceedings. The most pertinent here would be naturalization.

A naturalized U.S. citizen can have that status taken away if the federal government proves by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence in a civil federal court proceeding, or satisfies the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a comparable criminal case, that the citizen was not qualified for naturalization at the time it was mistakenly granted.

So, yes it does take a court proceeding.

Now, if the standard, at the time, that anyone born in the U.S. was qualified for naturalization, at the time it, was mistakenly granted? That is a whole separate court issue that no one is going to pursue, and no one is likely to win anyways.

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/denaturalization_pa.pdf
https://www.passage.law/blog/can-you-lose-us-citizenship/

This is a great example of Fudd, and I am not going to address it further. Given the rigor required to have someone's citizenship revoked that is already in place, the idea that SCOTUS can't limit the criteria for the granting of future citizenship by clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment without also revoking the citizenship of millions of people is preposterous on its face, and fails to pass even the most elementary level common sense test.

BusterAg said:

---

You can only lose your citizenship through three process: Renunciation, Denaturalization, or Expatriation. All three take court proceedings. The most pertinent here would be naturalization.

A naturalized U.S. citizen can have that status taken away if the federal government proves by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence in a civil federal court proceeding, or satisfies the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a comparable criminal case, that the citizen was not qualified for naturalization at the time it was mistakenly granted.

So, yes it does take a court proceeding.

Now, if the standard, at the time, that anyone born in the U.S. was qualified for naturalization, at the time it, was mistakenly granted? That is a whole separate court issue that no one is going to pursue, and no one is likely to win anyways.

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/denaturalization_pa.pdf
https://www.passage.law/blog/can-you-lose-us-citizenship/

This is a great example of Fudd, and I am not going to address it further. Given the rigor required to have someone's citizenship revoked that is already in place, the idea that SCOTUS can't limit the criteria for the granting of future citizenship by clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment without also revoking the citizenship of millions of people is preposterous on its face, and fails to pass even the most elementary level common sense test.

---

You're missing the point. From your own quote:

Quote:

---

A naturalized U.S. citizen...

---

I'm talking about folks who have never been naturalized. These are people who were born in the US, but to illegal immigrant parents. People have always assumed that these folks are citizens under the 14th amendment because they have a birth certificate showing that they were born in the US, just like most US citizens. But, if the Supreme Court were to hold that their illegal alien parents were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," then they were never entitled to citizenship. In a sense, they have less protection than the naturalized citizens you are talking about.

Imagine China sending tens and thousands of their citizens to be on vacation in the US while they are pregnant just to give birth so that they can come back to China, train up these "US Citizens" and when they are ready for deployment, send them back to the US to live.

twk said:

---

The Roe v. Wade analogy is a poor one. Abortion is a one time act. It's either legal at the time it happens or it isn't. Unless you are a naturalized citizen, citizenship is an attribute that you acquire by birth (and the argument here is exactly who acquires it by birth). Totally different.

---

Now do the death penalty. When it was "outlawed" in 1972 those on death row had their sentences commuted. When it was allowed again in 1976 they did not retroactively un-vacate or un-commute previous death penalty sentences.

We went from a bit of an open death penalty as a sentence option, to no death penalty, to okay you can have it back but you have to have rules, to not available for mentally ill, not available for minors, etc.

This would indicate to me that SCOTUS could apply it to "this moment forward".

Austin Ag said:

---

Imagine China sending tens and thousands of their citizens to be on vacation in the US while they are pregnant just to give birth so that they can come back to China, train up these "US Citizens" and when they are ready for deployment, send them back to the US to live.

---

That is exactly what is happening. Was on LAX to Hong Kong a few weeks ago and counted 22 newly born babies in coach. All to Asian mothers. Same thing last Fall on same route.

twk said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

You can only lose your citizenship through three process: Renunciation, Denaturalization, or Expatriation. All three take court proceedings. The most pertinent here would be naturalization.

A naturalized U.S. citizen can have that status taken away if the federal government proves by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence in a civil federal court proceeding, or satisfies the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a comparable criminal case, that the citizen was not qualified for naturalization at the time it was mistakenly granted.

So, yes it does take a court proceeding.

Now, if the standard, at the time, that anyone born in the U.S. was qualified for naturalization, at the time it, was mistakenly granted? That is a whole separate court issue that no one is going to pursue, and no one is likely to win anyways.

https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/denaturalization_pa.pdf
https://www.passage.law/blog/can-you-lose-us-citizenship/

This is a great example of Fudd, and I am not going to address it further. Given the rigor required to have someone's citizenship revoked that is already in place, the idea that SCOTUS can't limit the criteria for the granting of future citizenship by clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment without also revoking the citizenship of millions of people is preposterous on its face, and fails to pass even the most elementary level common sense test.

---

You're missing the point. From your own quote:

Quote:

---

A naturalized U.S. citizen...

---

I'm talking about folks who have never been naturalized. These are people who were born in the US, but to illegal immigrant parents. People have always assumed that these folks are citizens under the 14th amendment because they have a birth certificate showing that they were born in the US, just like most US citizens. But, if the Supreme Court were to hold that their illegal alien parents were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," then they were never entitled to citizenship. In a sense, they have less protection than the naturalized citizens you are talking about.

---

under the current definition they were granted citizenship by birth. The courts can say the definition is wrong but cannot revoke what was granted without separate proceedings.

Any other view is FUD.

Austin Ag said:

---

Imagine China sending tens and thousands of their citizens to be on vacation in the US while they are pregnant just to give birth so that they can come back to China, train up these "US Citizens" and when they are ready for deployment, send them back to the US to live.

---

I posted a topic on this a few weeks ago.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3534340/replies/69888156