Kirstjen Nielsen: Eliminating Birthright Citizenship 'On The Table'

[TheBlackAdder]

.

Forgive me if this is a duplicate post. I just saw it.

Kirstjen Nielsen went on the Bow-Tie Frat Boy with a Modified Dutch Boy Haircut Show.

In a deep dive into the legal consequences of such an order, Vox correspondent Dara Lind noted in October that Trump was toying with the idea. The 14th Amendment, stating that “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,” was ratified in 1868. Issuing such an order, Lind pointed out, would be a dare from Trump to the Supreme Court to stop him. She described such a maneuver as “potentially … the biggest constitutional power grab by a president in a century.”

But to Nielsen and white power champ Carlson, such a radical maneuver is no biggie. In fact, Carlson tried to push Nielsen into saying Trump would agree to it. He slipped it into his advocacy for an expansion of the E-Verify program to “punish” employers of undocumented immigrants. Nielsen’s nonchalant amenability was chilling.

Of course, nobody mentioned that Trump’s own businesses have relied on such labor.

CARLSON: It looks like Congress is not going to act because one party has a vested interest in changing the population and the other party is, in effect, controlled by people who want illegal immigration. So would there be a downside for the president to act unilaterally on that question or, for example, birthright citizenship? Would you be willing to draft an executive order eliminating birthright citizenship?

NIELSEN: I think – you know, Tucker, I think the president’s been clear. All of that is on the table, including to close down the border. We have to stop this flow into our communities, we have to stop the drugs, we have to stop the smuggling, gangs. He’s very serious about it. So, yes! I think everything is on the table.

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/kristjen-nielsen-eliminating-birthright

.

[Iliyah]

1. Ain't gonna happen . . .

too many Russians and Europeans.

[ScratchCat]

2. Again with people

Proposing powers that the POTUS does not have.

Its like they completely forgot 2008-2016 where they were doing back flips in the aisles over Obama "thinking he is emperor".

[Bleacher Creature]

3. No, it's not on the table. The American people made sure of that last November.

Elections have consequences. Fortunately, the last one brought us Speaker Pelosi.

[Perrenial Voter]

4. What's next, an ethnic/racial requirement for citizenship like they have in China? n/t

[RockaFowler]

5. My God she is evil

[Greybnk48]

6. Is she worried about "mudbloods?"

WTF is wrong with these skeevy creeps?

[struggle4progress]

7. US v Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649: decided 28 March 1898)

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him [p653] therefrom. In 1890 (when he must have been about seventeen years of age), he departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and did return thereto by sea in the same year, and was permitted by the collector of customs to enter the United States upon the sole ground that he was a native-born citizen of the United States. After such return, he remained in the United States, claiming to be a citizen thereof, until 1894, when he (being about twenty-one years of age, but whether a little above or a little under that age does not appear) again departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning to the United States, and he did return thereto by sea in August, 1895, and applied to the collector of customs for permission to land, and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he was not a citizen of the United States.

It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution ...

... the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

[spanone]

8. this woman is as vile a creature as trump

[shraby]

9. They can't change the constitution with an executive order. It's much much more

complicated. It involves all of the states and the congress, can't remember the numbers, but it's 2/3 of one and 3/4 of the other.

[Retrograde]

10. 2/3 of each house, 3/4 of the states

and it usually takes quite some time to get all the needed votes.

But since we're talking about Trump and his henchpeople, I wouldn't put it past him to try to enact an executive order to redefine citizenship: IMHO what's stopping him at the moment is figuring out how to word it so that his kids and those born to the women who paid the big bucks to stay at Trump properties in order to deliver on US soil get to keep their 14th Amendment citizenship.