Isn't this something Congress would have to pass a law on? EO's can be overturned by the next President.
Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
21–30 of 37 posts
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#22Trump issued an executive order ending birthright citizenship in America.
False. I would have agreed with you if this order also included ending it also for all "US Citizens" and "lawful permanent residents", but it does not. Read it again and you can clearly see that it is for those who are * not born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents"* . >>> (c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful pe…
it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; if you're born to US citizens (wherever you may be born) you get citizenship through your parents, not birthright.
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#23Isn't this something Congress would have to pass a law on? EO's can be overturned by the next President.
The 14th Amendment is already the law. SCOTUS has previously ruled that the exception to birthright are quite narrow. This EO is all about getting the case back to SCOTUS so they can change a previous ruling.
Legal Eagle has a good rundown of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH3v5aEe_g
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#24Birthright citizenship is one of those things that I thought was with us since the beginning. Turns out I was wrong.
It basically was. The common law doctrine of citizenship by birth prevailed from the founding up to Dred Scott. The reason it is uncommon worldwide is because nobody practices common law outside of the Anglophone former colonies and England itself. England had absolute birthright citizenship right up until Thatcher
Yep, jus soli. And Dred Scott overruled that for blacks. And (after the Civil War which was about slavery) the 14th Amendment overturned Dred Scott with birthright citizenship.
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#25Birthright citizenship is one of those things that I thought was with us since the beginning. Turns out I was wrong.
Establishing citizenship was less important when the US had open borders, which it more or less did for most of its existence.
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#26Very few countries have birthright citizenship ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli ). I still find it to be a strange concept. It seems like in the US, birthright citizenship isn’t granted in the constitution or laws directly but was the result of a court ruling, which is extra strange. I’m not sure if this is the right way to go about it, but I think removing it is the right direction to have a sense of soverei…
> Very few countries have birthright citizenship
Very few countries have a huge statue at the entrance of a major port with a big bronze plaque bearing the message "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (...)".
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#27Every Trump related post today is being flagged. Where's the editorial oversight here, @dang?
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
False. I would have agreed with you if this order also included ending it also for all "US Citizens" and "lawful permanent residents", but it does not. Read it again and you can clearly see that it is for those who are * not born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents"* . >>> (c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the entitlement of other individuals, including children of lawful pe…
it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship; if you're born to US citizens (wherever you may be born) you get citizenship through your parents, not birthright.
> it's still ending _birthright_ citizenship;
The important distinction is that this order is only for:
>>> those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".
This order does NOT affect children born IN the US to US citizens or "lawful permanent residents" while the OP suggested that this order was "ending birthright citizenship in America" which that is totally false, otherwise it would have included everyone including US citizens or permanent residents, but it does not.
Only for those who are NOT born to permanent "US citizens" or "lawful permanent residents".
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#29Every Trump related post today is being flagged. Where's the editorial oversight here, @dang?
HN isn't a current affairs site, so users tend to flag most of the hottest stories-of-the-day. That's expected and desirable.
Is there a specific submission that you feel should be getting a discussion on HN? Keep in mind that the mandate here is thoughtful conversation about stories that gratify intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
Re: Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the executive order? It clearly states it also covers parents that are here legally through visas like H, F etc... It is not just about illegal immigration. E.g. if you work in the US on H and have a kid with a student on F visa, the kid will not be a US citizen going forward (starting in 30 days). I'd be curious to hear the argument that people legally working or studying here aren't "subject to jurisdi…
Not a US citizen here so I may miss some nuances. I’d think the “tourist VISA” part makes sense after all. The “work VISA” part is strange, as you say. If I’m on a 15 days business trip, could make sense. If on a multi-year H1B… well, it sucks.
The definition of jurisdiction matters a lot here. But it's hard to explain why it would be that if someone who is here legal or illegal in the US, commits a crime is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore should simply go free and be deported as if they were simply a diplomat, with diplomatic immunity...
There's many cases as well like the Gitmo cases that explain what "jurisdiction" means, and it doesn't even simply mean whether or not you are on US soil, but can be subjected to US laws, even when overseas.