# Can a President over rule the Constitution with an Executive Order **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 30, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725 "2018-10-30T14:42:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/161 "2018-10-31T17:41:18Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Not using it to justify Trump’s policy. Just pointing out to the posters that claim that an EO can’t supercede the Constitution that it has in fact already happened (with SCOTUS approval) and so it could happen again - especially with this Court. The example works IN COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION that you’re suggesting. The case you’re citing is universally viewed as a travesty and one of the low points of our court system. If this EO is signed, and the Solicitor General gets to argue this in front of the Supreme Court, do you believe that he will cite Korematsu in his briefs as precedent for the President’s actions? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/162 "2018-10-31T17:48:55Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The example works IN COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION that you’re suggesting. > > The case you’re citing is universally viewed as a travesty and one of the low points of our court system. If this EO is signed, and the Solicitor General gets to argue this in front of the Supreme Court, do you believe that he will cite Korematsu in his briefs as precedent for the President’s actions? I guess I don’t understand your argument. Is it: \ EOs can’t overrule the Constitution \ It happened with EO 9066 and was upheld by SCOTUS \ Yeah well that ruling sucked so it’ll never happen again. And more to your point the _Slaughterhouse Cases_ is universally agreed to be a wrong decision but under stare decisis is still used as precedent in rulings. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/163 "2018-10-31T18:24:07Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > And might I add to this discussion that the Constitution HAS been overruled by [executive order](http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154) and that it was [upheld by SCOTUS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States). Abraham Lincoln overturned habeas corpus by executive order, too. Not to mention the Emancipation Proclamation, which said a lot but did nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/164 "2018-10-31T18:26:43Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Not using it to justify Trump’s policy. Just pointing out to the posters that claim that an EO can’t supercede the Constitution that it has in fact already happened (with SCOTUS approval) and so it could happen again - especially with this Court. I too thought this was the thrust of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Chip\_Dundas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Chip\_Dundas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chip_Dundas)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/165 "2018-10-31T18:34:30Z")
When the original amendment was passed, do you think the intention by lawmakers was for illegal immigrants and tourist from other countries to have babies here and automatically become citizens? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/166 "2018-10-31T18:36:31Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I guess I don’t understand your argument. Is it: > \ EOs can’t overrule the Constitution > \ It happened with EO 9066 and was upheld by SCOTUS > \ Yeah well that ruling sucked so it’ll never happen again. No, it’s more like: \ EO’s can’t overrule the Constitution \ Look at this wrongly decided case that has been thoroughly repudiated by literally everyone involved! \ Are you listening to yourself? Look, if you want to say that Korematsu was correctly decided, just say it. Otherwise, it is just a twist of this argument: \ Segregation in schools is illegal. \ Oh yeah? What about Plessy v Ferguson? \ Are you listening to yourself? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/167 "2018-10-31T19:01:26Z")
> [@Chip\_Dundas](#): > > When the original amendment was passed, do you think the intention by lawmakers was for illegal immigrants and tourist from other countries to have babies here and automatically become citizens? There was no such thing as illegal and legal immigration when the amendment passed. That concept was invented when we decided we didn’t like the Chinese any more and tried to exclude them. But they did understand that it would probably apply to immigrants who did not intend to remain in the US, though there was a debate about it at the time. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/168 "2018-10-31T19:06:22Z")
> [@Chip\_Dundas](#): > > When the original amendment was passed, do you think the intention by lawmakers was for illegal immigrants and tourist from other countries to have babies here and automatically become citizens? Yes. Illegal immigration might not have been a thing, but were plenty of tourists (you had to be rich and adventurous to travel around the world for entertainment, but there were plenty of rich Europeans who did just that) and other temporary visitors to the US in the 1860s, the fact they were not specifically excluded shows its crafters were fine with their children becoming citizens. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/169 "2018-10-31T19:45:53Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > Yes. Illegal immigration might not have been a thing, but were plenty of tourists (you had to be rich and adventurous to travel around the world for entertainment, but there were plenty of rich Europeans who did just that) and other temporary visitors to the US in the 1860s, the fact they were not specifically excluded shows its crafters were fine with their children becoming citizens. I’m not so sure. I believe at the time (and correct me if I am wrong) that most countries did not recognize dual-citizenship so if a woman came from the UK and had a baby that the baby while legally a US citizen would reside in and choose to be a citizen of the UK so why worry about it\*. \*Not sure of the law at the time but court cases that affirm dual-citizenship as a right that cannot be taken away by the US government have only occurred in the last 60 years. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/170 "2018-10-31T20:26:21Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > I’m not so sure. I believe at the time (and correct me if I am wrong) that most countries did not recognize dual-citizenship so if a woman came from the UK and had a baby that the baby while legally a US citizen would reside in and choose to be a citizen of the UK so why worry about it\*. > \*Not sure of the law at the time but court cases that affirm dual-citizenship as a right that cannot be taken away by the US government have only occurred in the last 60 years. That doesn’t change the fact that it would be plain to the crafters of the 14th amendment that it would mean baby born to a temporary visitor from Canada, Europe or Mexico, etc would be a US citizen. That is not a weird inconceivable occurrence in 1968. If they had wanted to explicitly exclude those children from US citizenship they would have added language to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/171 "2018-10-31T21:18:43Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Based on these two cites and the 14th itself Perhaps belaboring a point, but what that shows is how unlikely it is an _executive order_ limiting birth right citizenship could pass court muster. It tends to argue against what a lot of the posts have been saying, which is that the amendment itself clearly prohibits any such limitation. But it’s hard to show that without citing statutes passed by Congress defining the terms in the amendment. Courts could decide, or not, that Congress is prohibited from defining the terms any other way in a different statute. That’s non-obvious IMO. Nor would it be equivalent necessarily to certain laws or policies the USSC did uphold (like Japanese American internment, Plessy v Ferguson etc). I don’t see how it’s against basic US principals to say you are not necessarily a citizen if born here, if it’s specific exclusions Congress decides on, and not retroactive. Again, nobody says the kids of foreign military personnel on duty occupying part of the US they’d conquered would automatically have to be citizens according to ‘basic human decency’ nor, more realistically, foreign diplomat’s kids. I don’t buy the pearl clutching argument, for lack of a better term, that a non-retroactive Congressional statute defining ‘under the jurisdiction’ as ‘legally in the country’ and seeking permanent residency’ (not birth tourists) would violate any moral principal on par with the issues in the past racial discrimination cases mentioned. Back to the practical, the point that the _amendment_ didn’t specifically exclude particular cases doesn’t mean Congress has no authority to define terms in implementing an amendment. So just pointing to a lack of a long text like the statutes in the amendment itself doesn’t invalidate the statutes. The existing statute, or a new statute Congress might write. Again, I would guess that assuming Trump really intends to write such an EO (subject to doubt itself) the overwhelming likelihood would be a court decision saying ‘you can’t do that because it’s Congress’ prerogative’ and not getting into whether the substance violated the amendment. Though that wouldn’t gtee that a similar Congressional statute would pass muster. Just the legal hierarchy would be ‘violates separation of powers, therefore stop right there’. In that sense it _can_ be compare to some Obama overreaches, even if the topic and substance is different, and/or more defensible from a certain political POV. ---
**Author:** ![smithsb](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smithsb/32/12107_2.png) [@smithsb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smithsb)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/172 "2018-10-31T21:27:42Z")
Executive Order for Internment of Japanese-Americans upheld by SCOTUS. “But we were at war - things are different now.” “Really?”, said I. “We are at war right now.” “What?, that’s crazy talk Steve.” “Nope, we still have just an armistice on the Korean peninsula.” “Crazy talk, Steve. You can’t possibly use that as a pretext for executive actions.” “Really? Nixon used the Korean armistice in his arguments for wage and price controls. Other presidents since, in both parties, have used the, ‘it’s only an armistice so we are still at war’ to justify executive imposition of tariffs.” \* “No Steve, SCOTUS would never buy the, ‘We’re at war’, argument again. We’ve learned our lesson.” “Bullshit. My example of the Patriot Act (post 127) destroying all individual protections in the constitution negates that idea that SCOTUS will protect the constitution.” “But that was terrorism; we were under attack. It saved American lives.”\*\* “More BS. The act was used against American citizens as well as \ terrorists.” ---- “Don’t think Trump and his handlers are on the ‘war’ bandwagon? The big lies and conspiracy theories are already out there. It’s an ‘invasion’. ‘Armed thugs/violence’. ‘ISIS terrorists are mixed in with them’, ‘It’s middle easterners all the way down’. ‘We have to send troops’\*\*\*.” \*The state of war along with a series of congressional power giveaways. \*\*Of course, we can’t tell you about that for security reason, but trust us. \*\*\*I’m sure we already sent troops to secure the border. I could be wrong, perhaps they already left due to boredom. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/173 "2018-10-31T21:31:30Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Perhaps belaboring a point, but what that shows is how unlikely it is an _executive order_ limiting birth right citizenship could pass court muster. It tends to argue against what a lot of the posts have been saying, which is that the amendment itself clearly prohibits any such limitation. But it’s hard to show that without citing statutes passed by Congress defining the terms in the amendment. Courts could decide, or not, that Congress is prohibited from defining the terms any other way in a different statute. That’s non-obvious IMO. > > Nor would it be equivalent necessarily to certain laws or policies the USSC did uphold (like Japanese American internment, Plessy v Ferguson etc). I don’t see how it’s against basic US principals to say you are not necessarily a citizen if born here, if it’s specific exclusions Congress decides on, and not retroactive. Again, nobody says the kids of foreign military personnel on duty occupying part of the US they’d conquered would automatically have to be citizens according to ‘basic human decency’ nor, more realistically, foreign diplomat’s kids. I don’t buy the pearl clutching argument, for lack of a better term, that a non-retroactive Congressional statute defining ‘under the jurisdiction’ as ‘legally in the country’ and seeking permanent residency’ (not birth tourists) would violate any moral principal on par with the issues in the past racial discrimination cases mentioned. > > Back to the practical, the point that the _amendment_ didn’t specifically exclude particular cases doesn’t mean Congress has no authority to define terms in implementing an amendment. So just pointing to a lack of a long text like the statutes in the amendment itself doesn’t invalidate the statutes. The existing statute, or a new statute Congress might write. > > Again, I would guess that assuming Trump really intends to write such an EO (subject to doubt itself) the overwhelming likelihood would be a court decision saying ‘you can’t do that because it’s Congress’ prerogative’ and not getting into whether the substance violated the amendment. Though that wouldn’t gtee that a similar Congressional statute would pass muster. Just the legal hierarchy would be ‘violates separation of powers, therefore stop right there’. In that sense it _can_ be compare to some Obama overreaches, even if the topic and substance is different, and/or more defensible from a certain political POV. Good point…I admit, I hadn’t thought of it that way, though I see others have also made this point in the thread. I’m dense sometimes so appreciate you walking me through it. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Johnson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@Rick\_Johnson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Johnson)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/174 "2018-10-31T21:47:56Z")
> [@Clu-Me-In](#): > > [Donald Trump says he will overrule the 14th with an Executive order.](https://youtu.be/H355oS-c_3A) All Trump has to do is to gum up the voting booths long enough to win whatever election he is trying to win. By the time the Supreme Court rules the Executive order Unconstitutional, the election will be over and no one will demand a re-vote to allow all the people Trump had banned a chance to vote. Look at the Bush election and Florida. By the time the Courts got that fiasco settled, Bush was in office and could not be removed for an honest election. ---
**Author:** ![Grestarian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grestarian/32/3227_2.png) [@Grestarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grestarian)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/175 "2018-10-31T22:22:46Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > That doesn’t change the fact that it would be plain to the crafters of the 14th amendment that it would mean a baby born to a temporary visitor from Canada, Europe or Mexico, etc would be a US citizen. That is not a weird inconceivable occurrence in 1968. If they had wanted to explicitly exclude those children from US citizenship they would have added language to that effect. I’m glad **griffin1977** ’s post precedes mine because, while reading through this thread, I keep on thinking about Bruce Lee. Now, admittedly, this is from a dramatization of a third-party semi-biography so veracity and even the interpretations of the key characters are suspect. But here goes anyway: Early in the movie Dragon, (loosely) based on the memoirs of Bruce Lee’s former wife, we see Jun-Fan Lee’s father telling young Jun-Fan his scheme for helping him evade police problems (for getting into yet another fight). His plan was to send Jun-Fan to the USA because he was born there during the dad’s brief time there as part of the Peking Opera company that was touring. He even gave the newborn a very American-sounding name: Bruce. So, as the movie reveals, young Bruce heads to the USA, armed with his birth certificate that shows he was born on US soil in a US hospital. So, was the dad correct? He was a performer, not a lawyer – and certainly not any kind of expert in US Immigration Law. But did the USA “have to let [him] in” because _jus soli_ made him a US Citizen? [I suppose the point became moot two years after Bruce married Linda…] But that was the 1960’s, well after Wong Kim Ark and even the Japanese Internment orders [but well before the USA admitted that was a shitty thing to do and started reparations payments]. Just wondering how/if that particular case fits into this controversy. –G? Rednecks?! Why are we letting ANYONE play with anti-matter!?! It’s not a toy! ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/176 "2018-10-31T22:28:30Z")
> [@Grestarian](#): > > I’m glad **griffin1977** ’s post precedes mine because, while reading through this thread, I keep on thinking about Bruce Lee. > > Now, admittedly, this is from a dramatization of a third-party semi-biography so veracity and even the interpretations of the key characters are suspect. But here goes anyway: > > Early in the movie Dragon, (loosely) based on the memoirs of Bruce Lee’s former wife, we see Jun-Fan Lee’s father telling young Jun-Fan his scheme for helping him evade police problems (for getting into yet another fight). His plan was to send Jun-Fan to the USA because he was born there during the dad’s brief time there as part of the Peking Opera company that was touring. He even gave the newborn a very American-sounding name: Bruce. > > So, as the movie reveals, young Bruce heads to the USA, armed with his birth certificate that shows he was born on US soil in a US hospital. > > So, was the dad correct? He was a performer, not a lawyer – and certainly not any kind of expert in US Immigration Law. But did the USA “have to let [him] in” because _jus soli_ made him a US Citizen? > > [I suppose the point became moot two years after Bruce married Linda…] > But that was the 1960’s, well after Wong Kim Ark and even the Japanese Internment orders [but well before the USA admitted that was a shitty thing to do and started reparations payments]. > Just wondering how/if that particular case fits into this controversy. > > –G? > > Rednecks?! > Why are we letting ANYONE play with anti-matter!?! > It’s not a toy! I should point out that date is a typo. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 not 1968! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2018, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/177 "2018-10-31T22:48:14Z")
> [@Chip\_Dundas](#): > > When the original amendment was passed, do you think the intention by lawmakers was for illegal immigrants and tourist from other countries to have babies here and automatically become citizens? It expressly was not, In fact, it’s author stated it would NOT do that. This is from the Tucker Carson show, but the quote can be found easily via Google. > [@The Tucker Carlson Show](#): > > The senator who wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard of Michigan, explained the point of it on the Senate floor at the time. > > “The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,” he said. More in-depth info here. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2018, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/178 "2018-11-01T04:21:30Z")
> [@](#): > > The senator who wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard of Michigan, explained the point of it on the Senate floor at the time. > > “The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,” he said. Whatever the Senator said at the time, that’s now what the Amendment says. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2018, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/179 "2018-11-01T08:49:00Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > The obvious ‘benefit’ for advocates of this view is that it staunches the demographic realities of US population growth. Most likely within 25-30 years, the US will cease to be majority white. Somewhere in the latter half of the 21st century whites will no longer be the largest ethnic group and probably sometime in the early 22nd century, whites will be a significant minority and the country will largely be Hispanic and Asian. I think that there are people who feel that such a situation is essentially the ‘end’ of their conception of the United States. Eliminating birthright citizenship would likely buy them another century or so and depending upon birth rates of current minority citizens might keep them as the largest single ethnic group for as long as we could project. They would see this as a benefit. Yes. I’ve heard a number of people whining about whites becoming the minority. They’re already a minority in one state and guess what. The state works rather well. It’s not the color of skin, it’s the character, etc. And, of course, it’s the idea of American values. Well, it used to be, but Trump and his supporters have flushed that concept down long ago. > [@Slash1972](#): > > Can somebody explain how this would work in practice? Would hospitals have to start checking the citizenship of people before filing the birth certificate? Hospitals are not subject to following Executive Orders, as far as I know. Why would they? How does it work in other countries where birth doesn’t grant you citizenship? In Germany, where I was born, the only things the birth certificate (Geburtsurkunde) proved were: (a) the fact of birth, (b) the date and time of birth, (c) the place of birth, (d) names of my parents. I don’t have the thing handy now, but it may state the name of the delivering doctor. I do know it was signed by a government official. That does not prove citizenship there as neither of my parents was German (although my mother’s grandfather immigrated to the US from the very city in which I was born). Since Mom died last year, and Dad this year, I rather doubt there’d be any way to agitate for me to gain citizenship in the Federal Republic of Germany at this late date. In South Korea, it used to be the case that the father (or grandfather) would report the birth on the family register maintained by the government. That would grant citizenship even if the child was born overseas. The family register system was abolished effective 1 January 2008, so South Korea now uses a certificate system for deaths, births, marriages, divorces, etc. I have not seen any of the certificates yet. Oddly enough, many people I know in South Korea are unaware that the family register is no longer updated. > [@Lemur866](#): > > Kids who were born on American soil didn’t come here so they could get that sweet sweet welfare money. They didn’t come here at all. They were born here. They didn’t choose anything. > > So making them non-citizens helps, how? > > As for the idea that if we don’t make these people citizens we’ll stop the demographic shift that will eventually lead to whites being less than 50% of the population, how does making these people non-citizens help? > > They’re already here. We’d have to actually kick them out of the country if we wanted a whiter country. Excluding them permanently from citizenship just creates a permanent underclass of non-citizens. Your parents came here as non-citizens. You were born, but since your parents weren’t citizens you’re not a citizen. And when your children will be born, since you’re not a citizen, they won’t be citizens either. > > Again, we have to actually cleanse the country of these people if we want to make America whiter, making them non-citizens makes the citizenry of the country whiter but it doesn’t make the population whiter. > > And if the problem is impoverished Guatemalans and Mexicans sneaking into the country and then giving birth to future welfare recipients, well, why exactly do you think these guys are sneaking into the country? To get welfare? They can’t get welfare, they’re illegal aliens. To get welfare for their kids? How do they sign their kids up for welfare if they’re illegal aliens? To wait until their kids are 18, then tell the kids to sign up for welfare? > > If the complaint is that these kids are going to schools and driving on roads paid for by american taxes, do you think only citizens are allowed to go to public schools or drive on roads? > > If the problem is that we need to deport these parasites, and we can’t do that if they’re citizens, then why is it that we can’t seem to deport their parasitical illegal alien parents? If we can’t seem to round up their swarthy parents and send them back where they came from, when are we gong to get around to deporting the kids back to Mexico, where they’ve never been? Great points. And it’s a great description of the apartheid that Trump and his supporters want. (You know they don’t actually want illegal workers getting paid under the minimum wage to be deported, right?) Oh, speaking of [apartheid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid), look at how well that worked for South Africa. > [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > The 22nd Amendment. If a president had facist/authoritarian tendencies, he could eliminate presidential term limits by fiat. By restricting the vote to his supporters (gerrymandering, purging voting lists, etc.) he could become President for Life. [Thus spake the beige buffoon:](https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/05/politics/donald-trump-xi-jinping-analysis/index.html) > [@](#): > > He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot some day. > [@Ravenman](#): > > The lower courts are, and they could throw out Trump’s EO (if it ever materializes, which I sort of doubt). It doesn’t have to go to the Supreme Court to be resolved. Oh, I have no doubt he’ll pull this stunt. His supporters froth like ravenous wolves whenever he spews bigotry. Look at their reaction to his anti-Muslim comments. He came through for his supporters but “caved” when the courts dictated he was being discriminatory with his Muslim ban, and then amended it. That right there is what’s gotten a number of them completely miffed with the courts. He’ll sign it either the day before the election or shortly afterwards. And he’ll moan to high heaven about it getting tossed by the judiciary. > [@griffin1977](#): > > As I point out above Trump and his supports specifically cited that mistake as a shining example to follow during the election campaign. So none of this should be a surprise to anyone. Voting for Trump, and everything else that allowed him to win the election, was voting for (or being OK with) this specific thing happening. [Trump:](http://time.com/4140050/donald-trump-muslims-japanese-internment/) > [@](#): > > Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump told TIME that he does not know whether he would have supported or opposed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. > > “I would have had to be there at the time to tell you, to give you a proper answer,” he said during a recent interview in his office in New York City. “I certainly hate the concept of it. But I would have had to be there at the time to give you a proper answer.” [His camp:](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html) > [@](#): > > “We’ve done it based on race, we’ve done it based on religion, we’ve done it based on region,” Mr. Higbie said. “We’ve done it with Iran back — back a while ago. We did it during World War II with Japanese.” This proposed executive order doesn’t really have anything to do with the actual issue that has Trump and his supporters agitated. The migrants in the caravan are not seeking employment; they’re cool with that. At least the rich supporters are. IIRC, the folks in the caravan have stated they’re going to specifically request asylum in the US. That means they’re going to request a visa upon arrival. Once they’re granted asylum, of course, they’ll be able to legally work–and get paid the legal wage. Oh, and it means more people of a dusky hue will be living in the country legally. Oh, I’m not sure where to put this in this long(ish) post, so I’ll just put it at the end: [the Supreme Court recently stated this regarding the wartime Korematsu decision:](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/travel-ban-decision-supreme-court-overturns-ruling-supporting-world-war-n886681) > [@](#): > > The dissent’s reference to Korematsu, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—’has no place in law under the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2018, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725/180 "2018-11-01T12:38:56Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Yes. I’ve heard a number of people whining about whites becoming the minority. They’re already a minority in one state and guess what. The state works rather well. It’s not the color of skin, it’s the character, etc. And, of course, it’s the idea of American values. Well, it used to be, but Trump and his supporters have flushed that concept down long ago. There are 5 states and DC. Hawaii, California, Nevada, Texas and New Mexico. Whether they work well or not is probably a matter of opinion. My guess is that the people that think Texas works well do not think that California does and vice versa. I think we can all agree that DC is screwed up, but that’s more a product of their weird government than their demographics. Economically, Texas and California are both rich. Nevada and New Mexico are both poor and Hawaii is in the middle. On happiness indexes, Hawaii tends to score very happy, Nevada scores very sad, New Mexico, California and Texas tend to be somewhere in the middle. Basically, being minority-majority doesn’t seem to really say much of anything about your state. It’s just another way to be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-a-president-over-rule-the-constitution-with-an-executive-order/823725.md?page=10)