Lindsay Graham leaps to fulfill Trump's latest xenophobic fantasy

[bigtree]

Roll Call @rollcall 15m15 minutes ago
"I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President," South Carolina Republican says
twitter.com/rollcall/status/1057304876210941952

Trump said in an interview with Axios that he would be using an executive order to end birthright citizenship, though such an action is legally dubious — if not outright unconstitutional...

Graham, a former Air Force attorney and judge who is in the middle of a cross-country tour campaigning for Republican candidates for Senate and other key races, went further, announcing that he would be filing corresponding legislation in the Senate.

“The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth,” Graham said. “This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end.”

“I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President,” the South Carolina Republican said in a statement.

read: https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/lindsey-graham-trump-birthright-citizenship

[Jersey Devil]

1. As a lawyer Graham knows better

You cannot overturn a Constitutional provision with mere legislation. It would take a Constitutional amendment. He knows that, just more pandering to Trump.

[jberryhill]

2. That's just not true

You certainly can overturn a Constitutional interpretation that way.

You pass a law which conflicts with a prior SCOTUS decision, you let someone challenge it, and you get a new SCOTUS lineup to look at it.

The interpretation of "under the jurisdiction thereof" does not need a Constitutional amendment to change. It simply needs a new court to re-interpret it.

[Jersey Devil]

4. I think that is a stretch

That is right wing baloney and won't work, even with a solidly right court. The Constitution is clear.

[jberryhill]

5. "That is right wing baloney and won't work, even with a solidly right court"

Wanna bet?

Getting approval of right wing baloney is precisely why one appoints a solidly right court.

[EffieBlack]

6. Getting the Court to interpret a constitutional provision differently is not the same thing as

overturning the provision.

In the latter instance, the provision still stands. It just has a different meaning. In the former, the provision is eliminated. Legislation cannot overturn a provision. Nor can it overturn the interpretation of it - it can provoke the Court to interpret it differently, but only a Court can actually change the legal interpretation of the provision.

That said, as extreme as this Court has gotten, I doubt that a majority of justices would interpret "under the jurisdiction of" so restrictively as to eliminate birthright citizenship. I have no doubt that Kavanaugh and Thomas - and possibly Alito - would bite, but Roberts and Gorsuch would not.

[jberryhill]

7. There is a big difference between "difficult" and "impossible"

I would put nothing past this court.

[EffieBlack]

9. Agree.

[at140]

3. There is a large travel business in China whose customers

are pregnant women who travel to US on a tourist visa, deliver the baby
on US soil for the main purpose of acquiring US birthright citizenship. I
think birthright citizenship should be restricted to children whose parents
are US residents or citizens and not simply tourists. When you immigrate to
US, you start with becoming a US resident first, with a green card
(permanent resident visa) and then can apply for citizenship in 3-5 years
later with a clean record. That is what I did. Children of parent who acquire
US citizenship also are eligible to become US Citizens. I am not aware of
any major country which awards citizenship to children born to tourists.

[jberryhill]

8. At the end of the day, so what?

There are lots of things in law which are, as usual, taken advantage of by a statistically small and irrelevant proportion of people.

I have no doubt this goes on. But so what?

Explain to me in words I can understand that harm this does to me or anyone else, to the extent that a major Constitutional provision needs to be upended?

[EffieBlack]

10. Because zero sum game

Anything that benefits anyone else and doesn't directly benefit you takes something away from you and, therefore, must be eliminated, especially if the people benefitting from whatever that may be are darker than you ...

Or something ...

[at140]

12. I was born in India and darker than most Americans

and I want to understand why no country in Europe, South America, Australia or Asia allows birthright but my adopted country of United States does. Tourists coming here for the sole purpose of delivering a baby and then returning back to their home country soon after, are rewarded with US citizenship for their child?

[jberryhill]

15. First off, you are misinformed about the distribution of jus soli countries

Secondly, the answer to your "why" question is straightforward, although you are wrong about South America, almost all the countries of which recognize jus soli citizenship. That answer is "because the Constitution says so" and has been interpreted to say so since 1898.

The answer to your second question remains the one you have not answered - SO WHAT?

Yep. A small number of children of relatively wealthy families will, when they are old enough to live on their own a number of years in the future, be entitled to enter and reside in the United States. Whoop de doo. That deprives you and me of nothing.

You know who else can come in? The children of women raped abroad by US citizen men. Yep. Likewise, the children of prostitutes abroad patronized by US citizen men.

So, you tell me, why is it that a prostitute in Mumbai is "rewarded" with US citizenship for her child?

The larger answer is that any rule can create edge cases and odd incentives that are taken advantage of. However, this country has a long history of denying rights to marginalized groups, and of likewise using superficially well-intentioned laws for the purpose of doing just that.

So, do people take advantage of birthright citizenship? Yep, sure. I don't doubt that for a second.

But what you fail to recognize is that the negative consequences of changing that far outweigh the non-existent (at least you haven't bothered to identify any) downside of that handful of gamers.

[at140]

17. Correct me if I am wrong..

First I agree that a few rich people arriving as tourists to deliver a baby on US Soil are a small number. The number of children born to Mumbai prostitutes from American citizen fathers is smaller than the rich tourists by orders of magnitude. It is true however that American soldiers in Korea, Vietnam did produce a large number of children from non-American mothers.

However am I correct in saying lion's share of birthright children are from people in United States without official permission/visa to live here? That includes visa overstays. In other words undocumented people?

[at140]

11. The Supreme court needs to tackle this issue

I am no expert on the constitution, but what I have read is that the language of the 14th Amendment is ambiguous. Therefore the Supremes need to get involved and reach a conclusion what the 14th means.

[jberryhill]

13. What you have read is nonsense

The Supreme court does not "need" to get involved in solving a non-problem.

So, you are okay with Trump doing this in order to generate the vehicle needed to get this in front of the Supreme Court?

Because it's not as if courts settle bar bets. In order to get this in front of the Court, then someone born in this country needs to be denied citizenship and bring a lawsuit.

[at140]

18. Not at all, since I have thought about this issue for 48 years,

from the year I became a naturalized US citizen. Trump is just exploiting a legitimate issue.
Trump is a master of propaganda, which is what he has done for all of his life. He made money
selling the Trump brand more than any other method.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. OMG! Graham Wants a Slave. I wonder what for?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. Alright

Did someone question Graham's sexuality again to make him want to compensate.