Mixing
Why Donald Trump cannot revoke birthright citizenship?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Recently, there is a huge debate about revoking birthright citizenship to child born in the US to non-US citizens. But, I read here that almost all left and right wings of political system of the US say no to this decision. Still, it's not clear to me that is there any fundamentally prevent Trump's administration to revoke birthright such as something in the US Constitution or just politicians don't like this idea and as a result will not help Trump to do so. I will be very grateful if someone could explain this to me. Any idea or suggestion is appreciated.
united-states donald-trump immigration
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Recently, there is a huge debate about revoking birthright citizenship to child born in the US to non-US citizens. But, I read here that almost all left and right wings of political system of the US say no to this decision. Still, it's not clear to me that is there any fundamentally prevent Trump's administration to revoke birthright such as something in the US Constitution or just politicians don't like this idea and as a result will not help Trump to do so. I will be very grateful if someone could explain this to me. Any idea or suggestion is appreciated.
united-states donald-trump immigration
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
1
The link in your question mentions in its second sentence that this is covered in the US Constitution. I don't see any question here that isn't already covered in your linked article, and others on the subject. There are some who debate the commonly held interpretation of that sentence of the constitution, but that is not the same as asserting it is nowhere in the constitution.
– user4556274
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Recently, there is a huge debate about revoking birthright citizenship to child born in the US to non-US citizens. But, I read here that almost all left and right wings of political system of the US say no to this decision. Still, it's not clear to me that is there any fundamentally prevent Trump's administration to revoke birthright such as something in the US Constitution or just politicians don't like this idea and as a result will not help Trump to do so. I will be very grateful if someone could explain this to me. Any idea or suggestion is appreciated.
united-states donald-trump immigration
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
Recently, there is a huge debate about revoking birthright citizenship to child born in the US to non-US citizens. But, I read here that almost all left and right wings of political system of the US say no to this decision. Still, it's not clear to me that is there any fundamentally prevent Trump's administration to revoke birthright such as something in the US Constitution or just politicians don't like this idea and as a result will not help Trump to do so. I will be very grateful if someone could explain this to me. Any idea or suggestion is appreciated.
united-states donald-trump immigration
united-states donald-trump immigration
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
asked 1 hour ago
Alone Programmer
139111
139111
1
The link in your question mentions in its second sentence that this is covered in the US Constitution. I don't see any question here that isn't already covered in your linked article, and others on the subject. There are some who debate the commonly held interpretation of that sentence of the constitution, but that is not the same as asserting it is nowhere in the constitution.
– user4556274
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
The link in your question mentions in its second sentence that this is covered in the US Constitution. I don't see any question here that isn't already covered in your linked article, and others on the subject. There are some who debate the commonly held interpretation of that sentence of the constitution, but that is not the same as asserting it is nowhere in the constitution.
– user4556274
56 mins ago
1
1
The link in your question mentions in its second sentence that this is covered in the US Constitution. I don't see any question here that isn't already covered in your linked article, and others on the subject. There are some who debate the commonly held interpretation of that sentence of the constitution, but that is not the same as asserting it is nowhere in the constitution.
– user4556274
56 mins ago
The link in your question mentions in its second sentence that this is covered in the US Constitution. I don't see any question here that isn't already covered in your linked article, and others on the subject. There are some who debate the commonly held interpretation of that sentence of the constitution, but that is not the same as asserting it is nowhere in the constitution.
– user4556274
56 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1:
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendments amend the U.S. Constitution, so they are a part of the Constitution. Only further amendments can alter the language of other amendments, as seen by the passage of 18th Amendment and subsequent repeal by 21st Amendment. Most argue that, in order to revoke birthright citizenship, you would need to go through the process of amending the Constituion, which doesn't involve the President at all.
Some in the U.S. try to make the argument based on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and argue that people born in the United States to non-citizen parents aren't "subject to U.S. jurisdiction." Whether that's a valid legal argument is a bit out of scope for this site, but at least one question about it has been asked at Law.SE.
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
A President can revoke birthright citizenship, it's just that the revocation would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional and likely never get enforced.
Technically, a US President has the authority to direct a federal official or agency to enforce the law in any way they choose through what are called executive orders. According to the American Bar Association:
Executive orders are issued by the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as head of the executive branch, directing a federal official or administrative agency to engage in a course of action or refrain from a course of action. They are enforceable to the extent that they represent a valid exercise of the President’s power (i.e. the action must be within the president’s constitutional authority).
However, as explained in that last line US Presidents cannot actually order the federal government to enforce their executive orders if they exceed the authority granted to the President by the constitution. Part of a President's responsibility as president is adhering to the US Constitution, and the Constitution makes it clear in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US must be given citizenship:
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.
So, if President Trump wrote an executive order that told the federal government not to give citizenship at birth, he would have not ability to actually enforce it due to it going against the Constitution. It could be struck down by courts, and Congress could simply refuse to provide the funding necessary to carry out enforcement.
An alternative method to enforce this new citizenship law is through amending the Constitution itself to override the 14th amendment. However such an amendment is not directly within his power, as it would have to be approved by 2/3 majority of Congress or by a 2/3 majority of state legislatures, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1:
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendments amend the U.S. Constitution, so they are a part of the Constitution. Only further amendments can alter the language of other amendments, as seen by the passage of 18th Amendment and subsequent repeal by 21st Amendment. Most argue that, in order to revoke birthright citizenship, you would need to go through the process of amending the Constituion, which doesn't involve the President at all.
Some in the U.S. try to make the argument based on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and argue that people born in the United States to non-citizen parents aren't "subject to U.S. jurisdiction." Whether that's a valid legal argument is a bit out of scope for this site, but at least one question about it has been asked at Law.SE.
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1:
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendments amend the U.S. Constitution, so they are a part of the Constitution. Only further amendments can alter the language of other amendments, as seen by the passage of 18th Amendment and subsequent repeal by 21st Amendment. Most argue that, in order to revoke birthright citizenship, you would need to go through the process of amending the Constituion, which doesn't involve the President at all.
Some in the U.S. try to make the argument based on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and argue that people born in the United States to non-citizen parents aren't "subject to U.S. jurisdiction." Whether that's a valid legal argument is a bit out of scope for this site, but at least one question about it has been asked at Law.SE.
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1:
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendments amend the U.S. Constitution, so they are a part of the Constitution. Only further amendments can alter the language of other amendments, as seen by the passage of 18th Amendment and subsequent repeal by 21st Amendment. Most argue that, in order to revoke birthright citizenship, you would need to go through the process of amending the Constituion, which doesn't involve the President at all.
Some in the U.S. try to make the argument based on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and argue that people born in the United States to non-citizen parents aren't "subject to U.S. jurisdiction." Whether that's a valid legal argument is a bit out of scope for this site, but at least one question about it has been asked at Law.SE.
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
14th Amendment to the US Constitution, Section 1:
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendments amend the U.S. Constitution, so they are a part of the Constitution. Only further amendments can alter the language of other amendments, as seen by the passage of 18th Amendment and subsequent repeal by 21st Amendment. Most argue that, in order to revoke birthright citizenship, you would need to go through the process of amending the Constituion, which doesn't involve the President at all.
Some in the U.S. try to make the argument based on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", and argue that people born in the United States to non-citizen parents aren't "subject to U.S. jurisdiction." Whether that's a valid legal argument is a bit out of scope for this site, but at least one question about it has been asked at Law.SE.
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
edited 42 mins ago
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
answered 47 mins ago
Jeff Lambert
6,71532041
6,71532041
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
A President can revoke birthright citizenship, it's just that the revocation would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional and likely never get enforced.
Technically, a US President has the authority to direct a federal official or agency to enforce the law in any way they choose through what are called executive orders. According to the American Bar Association:
Executive orders are issued by the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as head of the executive branch, directing a federal official or administrative agency to engage in a course of action or refrain from a course of action. They are enforceable to the extent that they represent a valid exercise of the President’s power (i.e. the action must be within the president’s constitutional authority).
However, as explained in that last line US Presidents cannot actually order the federal government to enforce their executive orders if they exceed the authority granted to the President by the constitution. Part of a President's responsibility as president is adhering to the US Constitution, and the Constitution makes it clear in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US must be given citizenship:
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.
So, if President Trump wrote an executive order that told the federal government not to give citizenship at birth, he would have not ability to actually enforce it due to it going against the Constitution. It could be struck down by courts, and Congress could simply refuse to provide the funding necessary to carry out enforcement.
An alternative method to enforce this new citizenship law is through amending the Constitution itself to override the 14th amendment. However such an amendment is not directly within his power, as it would have to be approved by 2/3 majority of Congress or by a 2/3 majority of state legislatures, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
A President can revoke birthright citizenship, it's just that the revocation would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional and likely never get enforced.
Technically, a US President has the authority to direct a federal official or agency to enforce the law in any way they choose through what are called executive orders. According to the American Bar Association:
Executive orders are issued by the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as head of the executive branch, directing a federal official or administrative agency to engage in a course of action or refrain from a course of action. They are enforceable to the extent that they represent a valid exercise of the President’s power (i.e. the action must be within the president’s constitutional authority).
However, as explained in that last line US Presidents cannot actually order the federal government to enforce their executive orders if they exceed the authority granted to the President by the constitution. Part of a President's responsibility as president is adhering to the US Constitution, and the Constitution makes it clear in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US must be given citizenship:
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.
So, if President Trump wrote an executive order that told the federal government not to give citizenship at birth, he would have not ability to actually enforce it due to it going against the Constitution. It could be struck down by courts, and Congress could simply refuse to provide the funding necessary to carry out enforcement.
An alternative method to enforce this new citizenship law is through amending the Constitution itself to override the 14th amendment. However such an amendment is not directly within his power, as it would have to be approved by 2/3 majority of Congress or by a 2/3 majority of state legislatures, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
A President can revoke birthright citizenship, it's just that the revocation would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional and likely never get enforced.
Technically, a US President has the authority to direct a federal official or agency to enforce the law in any way they choose through what are called executive orders. According to the American Bar Association:
Executive orders are issued by the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as head of the executive branch, directing a federal official or administrative agency to engage in a course of action or refrain from a course of action. They are enforceable to the extent that they represent a valid exercise of the President’s power (i.e. the action must be within the president’s constitutional authority).
However, as explained in that last line US Presidents cannot actually order the federal government to enforce their executive orders if they exceed the authority granted to the President by the constitution. Part of a President's responsibility as president is adhering to the US Constitution, and the Constitution makes it clear in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US must be given citizenship:
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.
So, if President Trump wrote an executive order that told the federal government not to give citizenship at birth, he would have not ability to actually enforce it due to it going against the Constitution. It could be struck down by courts, and Congress could simply refuse to provide the funding necessary to carry out enforcement.
An alternative method to enforce this new citizenship law is through amending the Constitution itself to override the 14th amendment. However such an amendment is not directly within his power, as it would have to be approved by 2/3 majority of Congress or by a 2/3 majority of state legislatures, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
A President can revoke birthright citizenship, it's just that the revocation would be immediately challenged as unconstitutional and likely never get enforced.
Technically, a US President has the authority to direct a federal official or agency to enforce the law in any way they choose through what are called executive orders. According to the American Bar Association:
Executive orders are issued by the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as head of the executive branch, directing a federal official or administrative agency to engage in a course of action or refrain from a course of action. They are enforceable to the extent that they represent a valid exercise of the President’s power (i.e. the action must be within the president’s constitutional authority).
However, as explained in that last line US Presidents cannot actually order the federal government to enforce their executive orders if they exceed the authority granted to the President by the constitution. Part of a President's responsibility as president is adhering to the US Constitution, and the Constitution makes it clear in the 14th amendment that any person born in the US must be given citizenship:
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.
So, if President Trump wrote an executive order that told the federal government not to give citizenship at birth, he would have not ability to actually enforce it due to it going against the Constitution. It could be struck down by courts, and Congress could simply refuse to provide the funding necessary to carry out enforcement.
An alternative method to enforce this new citizenship law is through amending the Constitution itself to override the 14th amendment. However such an amendment is not directly within his power, as it would have to be approved by 2/3 majority of Congress or by a 2/3 majority of state legislatures, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
edited 22 mins ago
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
answered 34 mins ago
Giter
2,6571718
2,6571718
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34966%2fwhy-donald-trump-cannot-revoke-birthright-citizenship%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
The link in your question mentions in its second sentence that this is covered in the US Constitution. I don't see any question here that isn't already covered in your linked article, and others on the subject. There are some who debate the commonly held interpretation of that sentence of the constitution, but that is not the same as asserting it is nowhere in the constitution.
– user4556274
56 mins ago