A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
The Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15 in a case concerning the Trump administration’s attempts to abolish birthright citizenship. The justices will not be ruling on the policy’s constitutionality but rather deciding whether lower court judges overstepped their authority by nationwide blocking it.
President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," on his first day in office with the goal of eliminating automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants or certain non-citizens, including those on temporary visas.
The administration contends that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to everyone born in the U.S. They argue that this clause excludes undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas, asserting that these individuals aren’t fully under U.S. jurisdiction.
It’s evident that the Supreme Court believes the lower-court judges overstepped their authority. By attempting to obstruct the will of the people, the lower court judges have severely diminished their prestige. Trump will likely win this fight, as he has in all previous ones, because it’s clear what the obstructionist judges are trying to achieve: undermine the power of American voters and the very foundations of democracy itself.
Robert Sica
9 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
reenjoe
Robert,
While I have no doubt that the current Court could and would find rationales for the irrational, Trump's logic simply doesn't work.
If the children of undocumented immigrants are not entitled to citizenship because the undocumented are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., it is also true that the U.S. has no jurisdiction to deport those same undocumented individuals.
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that out.
Wednesday, May 7 Report this
J. Donne
reenjoe
Summation:
The letter states that the Supreme Court will hear arguments on May 15th regarding the Trump administration's attempt to abolish birthright citizenship., The administration argues that the 14th Amendment's "subject to Jurisdiction thereof" clause excludes undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas.
Apparently, you miss the point. Illegal immigrants are simply that—illegal immigrants—and therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the law. If Trump is correct, the Supreme Court will agree with Trump. If not, the Supreme Court will not agree with Trump. It’s intriguing to observe whether the Supreme Court concurs with Trump. If so, illegal immigrants will return to their home countries because they will not be eligible for social services. Trump won’t have to deport them, Sherlock.
Wednesday, May 7 Report this
reenjoe
JDonne, I am the one who missed the point????
The core argument the Trump Administration is making is that the undocumented ARE NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because if the Court finds that they are, the children of undocumented immigrants have birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Even Mr. Sica's letter clearly makes this point - "They (the Administration) argue that this clause excludes undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas, asserting that these individuals aren’t fully under U.S. jurisdiction."
Read Trump's petition to the SCOTUS - Sherlock!
Wednesday, May 7 Report this
reenjoe
The real flaw in the Trump Administration's SCOTUS argument defending the EO eliminating birthright citizenship is that the nationality of the parents is of no consequence with respect to the law. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says:
"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 mention of parentage. It applies solely to the individual - the American-born child.
To summarize - these children are "persons", they were "born" in the U.S., and these American-born children are "subject to jurisdiction" of the U.S. and the state wherein they reside, making them citizens.
A logical, rational reading of the Constitution is clear - Trump's EO is illegal. Whether the current ideologically biased Court reaches the same conclusion is anyone's guess.
Thursday, May 8 Report this
krell1349
If Trump wants this changed, it can't be by executive order. It needs to be a new amendment to the Constitution(which Trump doesn't know anything about and doesn't know if he took an oath to uphold the Constitution). If this new amendment is proposed, it will never be ratified.
Thursday, May 8 Report this
J. Donne
reenjoe
Primarily, individuals who enter the United States without proper authorization are deemed illegal immigrants and, consequently, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If the Supreme Court of the United States were to rule that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, it would have a profound impact on the status of these individuals, potentially leading to the cessation of all social services.
Let us closely monitor the unfolding of this situation in the courtroom. Should the Supreme Court uphold Trump’s legal challenge, it would have profound repercussions for undocumented immigrants. This nation is governed by law, and if not everyone adheres to its principles, anarchy inevitably prevails. As Sherlock Holmes famously said, “Anarchy is the law of the jungle.”
Friday, May 9 Report this
J. Donne
reenjoe
The Trump administration contends that the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause prevents undocumented immigrants and those on temporary visas from automatically acquiring citizenship. Can you grasp the crux of the argument? As Sherlock Holmes famously said: elementary Watson!
( Referring to the Supreme Court of the United States as racist is unfounded. As I mentioned earlier, the tactic of crying racism is ineffective. )
Friday, May 9 Report this
reenjoe
JDonne,
Firstly, the point in question is whether or not THE AMERICAN BORN CHILDREN of undocumented immigrants are citizens as per the 14th Amendment. The status of their parents is completely irrelevant; the 14th contains no reference to parentage.
Secondly, those here without documentation or on temporary visas have not been allowed to receive federal social services under U.S. law since the 1990's. However, their U.S. born children are allowed to receive such services, just like all U.S. citizens.
Thirdly, it is YOUR constant use of the term "illegal immigrants" that is racist. I referred to the SCOTUS as "ideologically biased", not racist. I stand by that statement; you should be ashamed of yours.
It's shocking how often you attempt to misrepresent what others write or try change the subject in order to make your point. The SCOTUS case is only about birthright citizenship, period.
Saturday, May 10 Report this
J. Donne
Hello reenjoe,
1. Not citizens! Illegal immigrants are not citizens.
2. Not citizens! People come here on visas to have their children for social services; shame on them!
3. Look up the definition of the word “prejudice.” I will do you a favor; I will provide the definition of the word “racist”: Characterized by or showing prejudice. “I rest my case!”
Your letters are deplorable. You consistently use vile adjectives to describe President Trump and his supporters. You use the word “prejudice,” which means “racist!” I rest my case!
( If anyone should be ashamed, it is you. Your letters are filled with hyperbole and hatred. Shame on you!)
( Every time you write a racist and vile letter, I will proudly criticize it, Sherlock!)
Sunday, May 11 Report this