Rounds says Trump can't unilaterally change citizenship under 14th Amendment

Rounds says Trump can't unilaterally change citizenship under 14th Amendment

The answer to all of these questions is: NO.

Birth tourism refers to the practice of people travelling to another country exclusively to give birth there.

But who are citizens?

This holds nearly everywhere on Earth: Any new child born is registered as having the same citizenship as the mother, no matter where that birth took place.

Wong was denied entry by a stridently anti-Chinese customs collector, on the grounds that he was not in fact a USA citizen, owing to his parents' status as Chinese immigrants at the time of his birth. Under current law and practice, the citizenship-status of the mother does not count.

The Supreme Court settled the issue in 1898, in the case of a man born here to Chinese parents, who could not become citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, an infamous artifact of racial animus. Therefore it would be illogical to seek an end to their birthright citizenship out of fear of drugs, crime and rape. Persons already alive should not lose their citizenship.

Beyond the nuts and bolts of American governance, most of this time is spent on the indeterminate language of the supreme law of the United States. If Congress passed a new law ending birthright citizenship, the courts would immediately hear challenges rooted in the 14th Amendment, with Wong Kim Ark a key precedent. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 6 percent of US births (250,000 per year) are to undocumented immigrants.

They simply changed their laws of citizenship.

Some countries have massively tightened their citizenship requirements in recent years to drop a simple "jus soli" birthright, such as Britain in 1983 and Australia in 1986.

There are arguments on both sides.

That section is part of the 14th Amendment.

Rebel Wilson 'deeply sorry' for plus-sized claims
Fans of the actress thanked her for apologising - while some reactions involved a bit more eye-rolling. Wilson responded with a lawsuit which she won but was later forced to pay back a substantial sum.

That would be the result of his plan to restrict birthright citizenship by executive order.

True. But to most Americans, the fate and future of the republic is more likely to be determined on the U.S.

Trump is bulldozing through constitutional norms again with his suggestion that he can remove the right to citizenship for children born in America of undocumented immigrants.

Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, that phrase from the Preamble has defined the goal of each amendment to our nation's founding document, beginning with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments), ratified in 1791, which guarantees such fundamental rights as freedom of speech, religion and assembly. No one who debated and adopted the 14th amendment contemplated a large-scale influx of undocumented immigrants, or the rise of birth tourism.

"What (President) Trump is seeking to do is enact a constitutional amendment through executive fiat through the phone and the pen, and you can't do that", Matthew Kolken, an immigration lawyer who is an elected member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's board of governors told Business Insider. The Confederacy was defeated in the Civil War. Then, there would never have been any confusion about which persons are American citizens.

Also, the 14th Amendment confers citizenship on those born in the USA and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Before any laws were created in the US restricting immigration (beginning in the 1880s), it was not possible to distinguish AUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS from UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS because the borders were open for ALL IMMIGRANTS. They are not physically present in the United States, have not been denied asylum-or the ability to file an asylum claim-and have not been detained.

No. In the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins decision, the Supreme Court ruled that John Elk, a Winnebago Indian born on a reservation, had not denied his constitutional right to vote, as he was not a USA citizen. It declared slaves then controlled by rebel forces to be free. The 14th Amendment overturned it.

It established this right in 1951 for any person born there after that date, apart from children of foreign diplomats and "of enemy alien born", which is taken to mean India. Most leave for their home countries right after.

By inference, should this exception also apply to other FOREIGN VISITORS living in the USA? The same rule had applied to whites in the U.S. since the country's founding, the Court said, and the amendment had extended the rule to everyone else. If you want foreigners to speak English, adopt American customs and not undercut American workers, denying them citizenship would be supremely self-defeating.

Why not assume the same for foreign visitors to the USA? But one thing is clear, ending birthright citizenship for babies with two unauthorized immigrant parents would, according to the Migration Policy Institute, increase the existing unauthorized population in the USA from 11 million to 16 million by 2050.

Related Articles