Trump again says he is 'very seriously' looking to end birthright citizenship

  
Via:  tessylo  •  one month ago  •  159 comments

Trump again says he is 'very seriously' looking to end birthright citizenship

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Trump again says he is 'very seriously' looking to end birthright citizenship








9197dca0-94e1-11e6-9718-4d4a4a2e45f0_US-   Dylan Stableford   15 hours ago


 















Eight months after first raising the idea President Trump on Wednesday said his administration is again “very seriously” looking into ending the practice of conferring U.S. citizenship on anyone born in the United States













“We’re looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby — congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen,” Trump told reporters on the South Lawn of the White House. “It’s frankly ridiculous.”

In October, on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, Trump said he believed he could end birthright citizenship by executive order, claiming it was not part of the U.S. Constitution, and predicting the question would ultimately be settled by the Supreme Court.

The legal consensus is that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

631463b0-c44c-11e9-a7e8-19f21539f963
President Trump and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Photo illustration: Yahoo News; photos: AP, NARA)

“The 14th Amendment settled the question of birthright citizenship,” John Yoo, a Berkeley law professor who served in the George W. Bush administration,  wrote in an essay in response to Trump’s claim . “According to the best reading of its text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is an American citizen.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board  said  Trump’s “birth citizenship gambit” puts him “on the wrong side of immigration law and politics,” and that the meaning of the amendment is clear.


“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time. “As a conservative, I’m a believer of following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.”

Trump also falsely claimed that the United States is the “only country in the world” to follow the practice when, in fact, more than 30 countries grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.









Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

Another move to stir up his rabid base.

The fucking moron knows that this will not happen.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

“The 14th Amendment settled the question of birthright citizenship,” John Yoo, a Berkeley law professor who served in the George W. Bush administration, wrote in an essay in response to Trump’s claim. “According to the best reading of its text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is an American citizen.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board said Trump’s “birth citizenship gambit” puts him “on the wrong side of immigration law and politics,” and that the meaning of the amendment is clear.


“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time. “As a conservative, I’m a believer of following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.”

Trump also falsely claimed that the United States is the “only country in the world” to follow the practice when, in fact, more than 30 countries grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago

Best way to solve the problem is to keep the bastards from crossing the border in the first place.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  WallyW @2.1    one month ago

I worked for many years in the laboratory of a small rural hospital right on the AZ/Mexico border. I cannot tell you the number of times we had women who were in heavy labor wait till the last moment to come across the border just so they could deliver on the American side of the border, then brag about what they got away with as they were wheeled out with their newborn bundles of joy that got delivered for free courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers. Funny you never hear the progressive liberal left ever complain or comment about that!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.1    one month ago

I'm so sure that happened all the time, NOT.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.2    one month ago

Yes, it did happen quite frequently. I was there while you were not. Therefore that makes what you think quite irrelevant. You have a good evening now...

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.3    one month ago

[Deleted]

[Ed is not the topic]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.4    one month ago

When one's house is a mere 6 blocks from the border fence and you can literally see Mexico out the front door, yes you can.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.5    one month ago

You should take video and report them to the authorities.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.6    one month ago

No need. We have one of the largest CBP stations in the country here. It's a small town and they respond pretty quickly. Besides, I have two large dogs that bark very loudly when illegals are running the alleys behind my house. I have called CBP many times and reported them and seen them apprehended.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
2.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  WallyW @2.1    4 weeks ago

Just like those filthy Irish and Italians. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.1.8    4 weeks ago

He is talking about illegal immigration. As for stopping legal immigration, check out the "Immigration Act of 1924".  It put a stop to the legal immigration of one of those groups.

 
 
 
lady in black
3  lady in black    one month ago

Just like he's serious about gun control, buying greenland, etc., etc., etc.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @3    one month ago

I guess a lot of people disagreed with you in 2016?


 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.1  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago

Deflect away, it's 2019

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @3.1.1    one month ago

And 2020 is right around the corner!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    one month ago

And 2020 is right around the corner!

Yes we know, Russia is gearing up for it, and Trump has invited them in.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
3.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  lady in black @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

No deflection, just plain fact.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Here is the problem:

"Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14 th  Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment."

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

The intent of the birthright provision section of the 14th Amendment was aimed directly at helping the former slaves and Native Americans. Nobody at that time could conceive of the idea that migrants would be using the law to gain citizenship for their babies & themselves.


"The phrase  "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"  was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship."

The correct interpretation of the 14 th  Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her  native  country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)] 13 . In the 1884  Elk v.Wilkins  case 12 , the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In  Elk , the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

 
 
 
Karri
4.1  Karri  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    one month ago

A more pertinent interpretation came from the Supreme Court itself.  See United States vs Wong Kim Ark.  You might also want to review the 14th Amendment (upon which US v Ark was decided).  Then there is the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

BTW, "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" refers to our laws.  Even undocumented immigrants must adhere to our laws.  However, anyone with diplomatic immunity does not.  Also, invading and occupying military do not.  Otherwise, anyone born on US soil (except American Samo'a) are natural born citizens. 

 
 
 
GregTx
4.1.1  GregTx  replied to  Karri @4.1    one month ago

"Otherwise, anyone born on US soil (except American Samo'a) are natural born citizens."

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

"American Samoa is noted for having the highest rate of military enlistment of any U.S. state or territory."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Samoa

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.2  Kavika   replied to  GregTx @4.1.1    one month ago

Samoan's are considered U.S. Nationals. They are not U.S. Citizens...A SCOTUS decision in 2016 upheld that ruling.

Afai e te manaomia soo se faamatalaga i Amerika Samoa ia lagonaina le saoloto e fesili.

Fa'a Samoa.

A person born on American Samoa is not considered a citizen except if one of the parents is an American citizen.

 
 
 
GregTx
4.1.3  GregTx  replied to  Kavika @4.1.2    one month ago

Thank you for that. It just doesn't make sense to me that American Somoans aren't citizens by birth.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.4  Kavika   replied to  GregTx @4.1.3    one month ago
Thank you for that. It just doesn't make sense to me that American Somoans aren't citizens by birth.

It doesn't make any sense to me or thousands of other Americans....It's a travesty, IMO.

 
 
 
Karri
4.1.5  Karri  replied to  GregTx @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
American Samoa is noted for having the highest rate of military enlistment of any U.S. state or territory."

I am not surprised.  Samo'ans are very patriotic.  I really don't understand why they don't have natural born status; they should.

 
 
 
Karri
4.1.6  Karri  replied to  Kavika @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
Afai e te manaomia soo se faamatalaga i Amerika Samoa ia lagonaina le saoloto e fesili.

Some of those words are very close to Chamorro, yet they are from completely different linguistic trees.  Have you lived on Samo'a?

And, to your later comment, I agree.  It is a travesty that they do not have natural born status.  In fact, I think they are the only territory in that position.  Even the CNMI has natural born status (if born after 1946).

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.7  Kavika   replied to  Karri @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
Some of those words are very close to Chamorro, yet they are from completely different linguistic trees.  Have you lived on Samo'a?

Hafa Adai, Karri.

Yes, I lived in Samoa for a time. We had two large customers there and I acted as a liaison while we were setting up the transportation end of their business. I also have Samoan relatives (son in law and others)...

Yes, there are some words that are similar. I also spent a lot of time on Guam. We had operations there as well.

 
 
 
Karri
4.1.8  Karri  replied to  Kavika @4.1.7    4 weeks ago

Hafa Adai!  Todu moalek?

I have a relative who lived on both American Samoa and Guam.  I've never been to Somoa, but I do know one or two people from there.  I have lived on both Guam and Hawai'i.  They feel like home.

I miss Guam so much, but I bet it has changed a lot.  I really want to go back.  I'd still be living there today, but I met this guy . . .

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1.9  Kavika   replied to  Karri @4.1.8    4 weeks ago

Kao sina hao fumino Chamoru?

My Chamorro is very limited. 

I retired in 2005, and my last trip to Guam was in late 2004. 

I loved the red rice with BBQ. There was a certain wood that was used for BBQing in Guam. I can't remember what it called but it made a wonderful BBQ.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

“The 14th Amendment settled the question of birthright citizenship,” John Yoo, a Berkeley law professor who served in the George W. Bush administration, wrote in an essay in response to Trump’s claim. “According to the best reading of its text, structure and history, anyone born on American territory, no matter their national origin, ethnicity or station in life, is an American citizen.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial board said Trump’s “birth citizenship gambit” puts him “on the wrong side of immigration law and politics,” and that the meaning of the amendment is clear.

“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time. “As a conservative, I’m a believer of following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.”

Trump also falsely claimed that the United States is the “only country in the world” to follow the practice when, in fact, more than 30 countries grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6  Trout Giggles    one month ago

Will we all have to apply for citizenship, now?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    one month ago

Not if your parents were citizens!  It's really quite simple.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    one month ago
“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time. “As a conservative, I’m a believer of following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.” Trump also falsely claimed that the United States is the “only country in the world” to follow the practice when, in fact, more than 30 countries grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    one month ago

It can be resolved by the SCOTUS. It is they who have to determine the context of birthright citizenship. A challenged executive order might just get it there!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.1    one month ago

Some people don't understand my jokes

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    one month ago

“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time. “As a conservative, I’m a believer of following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.” 

Trump also falsely claimed that the United States is the “only country in the world” to follow the practice when, in fact, more than 30 countries grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.3    one month ago
jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.4    one month ago

We got it the first time.  And what was my response?  It is up to the SCOTUS to sort out!

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.6    one month ago

Obviously 'you' didn't get it.  

“You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,” then-House Speaker Paul Ryan said at the time. “As a conservative, I’m a believer of following the plain text of the Constitution. And I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.” 

Trump also falsely claimed that the United States is the “only country in the world” to follow the practice when, in fact, more than 30 countries grant citizenship to anyone born within their borders.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.8    one month ago
Obviously 'you' didn't get it.  

Let's see how much you got?   If the President issues an executive order - what happens?

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.10  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    one month ago

It's a Constitutional amendment. [Deleted]

I think birthright citizenship has outlasted its usefulness, but Trump is not a dictator and this should be done the right way.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.10    one month ago
It's a Constitutional amendment.

It is a part of one. Written in specifically to address former slaves and Native Americans. Arguably no one else!

 Why do Trump supporters spit on our Constitution?

Are you generalizing about Trump supporters again? [deleted]
I think birthright citizenship has outlasted its usefulness

I say it was only supposed to apply to former slaves [&] Native Americans, but it is nice to see you agree. So your only objection is that it's Trump trying to fix it?  You know it's being abused, but you are always against Trump.

but Trump is not a dictator and this should be done the right way.

There are but two ways to solve it: Either congress fixes the Amendment (Do you see that happening?) OR the Supreme Court determines what was meant by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  You need a mechanism to get it to the court. If Trump issues an illegal executive order, it will be immediately challenged, right?  Might then it find it's way to the Court?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.12  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @6.1.10    one month ago

[Deleted] the 'president' use the Constitution as toilet paper.  

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.13  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.11    one month ago
So your only objection is that it's Trump trying to fix it? 

Sure, I think Trump is an asshole - but if anyone else tried to end it by executive order, I'd be against that too. It's the act of a dictator.

Congress needs to do their job. No, I'm not very hopeful - after all, they can't even do their job of providing oversight over this wreck of a president - but there's a reason our founding fathers didn't make it easy to amend the constitution.

Are you generalizing about Trump supporters again?

It's Trump supporters who are agreeing with Trump's mockery of our Constitution. Am I supposed to not notice that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.13    one month ago
Sure, I think Trump is an asshole

So, you have told us a million times. I consider that trolling btw.

but if anyone else tried to end it by executive order, I'd be against that too. 

I find that hard to believe, but I'll take your word.

Congress needs to do their job. 

A measure that Trump wants would have to go through the House. There isn't much to think about. Not in a million years!

It's Trump supporters who are agreeing with Trump's mockery of our Constitution. 

You know that is another sweeping generalization, right? 

Am I supposed to not notice that?

I expect decency!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    one month ago
So, you have told us a million times. I consider that trolling btw.

Funny, I consider your conspiracy theories to be trolling. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @6.1.10    one month ago
Why do Trump supporters spit on our Constitution?

Because they don't understand it

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.17  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.15    one month ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.18  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    one month ago
I expect decency!

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to not be decent. But when people act like the Constitution is something that can be trampled at Trump's whim, I'm going to call it out. And they're usually the same people who complained about Obama's use of executive orders - which is outright hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.19  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.15    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.20  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.18    one month ago
But when people act like the Constitution is something that can be trampled

That would be all the federal judges who deliberately made unconstitutional rulings to obstruct Trump starting with the President's right to enact a travel ban!

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.21  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.19    one month ago

What source?  What fact(s)?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.22  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.14    one month ago
'I expect decency!'

Regarding this 'president', don't hold your breath.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.23  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.21    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.24  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.22    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.23    one month ago

I didnt ask anyone to have your article closed.  I was having fun pointing out how ridiculous it was. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.26  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.25    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.27  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.20    one month ago
That would be all the federal judges who deliberately made unconstitutional rulings to obstruct Trump starting with the President's right to enact a travel ban!

So you're more of a constitutional expert than federal judges? You know damn well that Trump shot himself in the foot by tweeting and blabbing all about what his true intentions were with that ban. If he had half a brain and a modicum of impulse control, he could easily have gotten away with it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.28  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @6.1.27    one month ago
So you're more of a constitutional expert than federal judges?

Did you really think the President didn't have that right?  [deleted]

You know damn well that Trump shot himself in the foot by tweeting and blabbing all about what his true intentions were with that ban. If he had half a brain and a modicum of impulse control, he could easily have gotten away with it.

 Anything the President said during a campaign is irrelevant. Only an Obama judge would use that! The case had to be decided on it's merit. It did take a long time to go through the legal system. I bet your glad. He was sabotaged huh? [deleted]

 
 
 
Freefaller
6.1.29  Freefaller  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    one month ago
Not if your parents were citizens!

So my surviving parent was not a citizen (but was there as a legal visitor) when I was born in the US, but he is now because I sponsored him.  So would either of us still be citizens after this EO?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.30  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.28    one month ago

[delete]  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  Freefaller @6.1.29    one month ago

I'd tell you to check with the local Immigration Office...but then they might kick down your door, drag you off, and then we never hear from you again. I wouldn't like that.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.32  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.31    one month ago
I wouldn't like that.

Agreed! 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.33  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.16    one month ago
Why do Trump supporters spit on our Constitution?

Because it gets in the way of what they, and Trump, want to do. Personally, I expect any day for Trump to declare the Constitution null and void, or at least try to, and his rabid supporters would do all they could to help him void it.

Not that they would have a chance of succeeding, but, they would likely give it a real effort, saying it is now out dated and of no value in today's world. 

With Trump and his boot lickers anything is possible. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.34  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.11    one month ago

It also included indentured slaves, many from Ireland.

 
 
 
Freefaller
6.1.35  Freefaller  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.31    one month ago
but then they might kick down your door, drag you off, and then we never hear from you again. I wouldn't like that.

Lol that'd be interesting given I haven't lived in the US since I was 3.

I wouldn't like that

Awwww shucks

 
 
 
Karri
6.1.36  Karri  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    one month ago
Not if your parents were citizens! 

And if one parent was a citizen and the other not (yet) a citizen?  My father's families were here long before Trump's, but my mother only moved here when she married my father.  She became a US citizen after I was born.

In any case, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.  Your parents' citizenship is not important.

 
 
 
Karri
6.1.37  Karri  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    one month ago
It can be resolved by the SCOTUS. It is they who have to determine the context of birthright citizenship.

They already have.  See United State v Wong Kim Ark.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.38  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @6.1.27    one month ago

'So you're more of a constitutional expert than federal judges? You know damn well that Trump shot himself in the foot by tweeting and blabbing all about what his true intentions were with that ban'

Yup, a Muslim travel ban.

He prefers white folks over our dusky Muslim brethren.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.39  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.3    4 weeks ago

At least you have a sense of humor while some here do not, unless they think of it first.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.2    4 weeks ago
It can be resolved by the SCOTUS. It is they who have to determine the context of birthright citizenship.

As has already been pointed out, they already have. 

A challenged executive order might just get it there!

The litigation of the EO need not be based on the 14th. His tweet stating that he has the authority to usurp the Constitution by citing a national emergency gives fodder to the ACLU and others to get an injunction. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.41  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @6.1.18    4 weeks ago
But when people act like the Constitution is something that can be trampled at Trump's whim,

were you OK when obama did it? or did you call out his bs also?

just curious :)

 
 
 
Tacos!
7  Tacos!    one month ago
I think in this case the 14th Amendment’s pretty clear.

Well, it's obviously not "clear" or we wouldn't have so much debate about it.

In either event, I'd say it's at least worth reconsideration. I don't think it can be said about the United States that it needs more citizens so badly that unrestricted jus soli should be the standard. We also don't have some large population of people living within our borders (such as indigenous people or slaves) who have been existing outside the protections of American citizenship.

Most countries in the Americas have this standard, but most countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia do not. I would guess this is because they don't feel they need it. I don't see the US needing it either.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7    one month ago
Well, it's obviously not "clear" or we wouldn't have so much debate about it.

Just because some people choose to spit on the constitution doesn't mean it's not clear. Whether you think its time has passed or not, if we want to get rid of it, we have to do it right and amend the constitution.

It was needed at the time, to protect the former slaves and the indigenous people. Now, it isn't needed IMO. I personally think that birthright citizenship should only be granted to people whose parents are citizens.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @7.1    one month ago
if we want to get rid of it, we have to do it right and amend the constitution.

Not these days. 5 Justices just decide the Constitution changed overnight. Thanks liberals.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.1    one month ago
Whether you think its time has passed or not, if we want to get rid of it, we have to do it right and amend the constitution.

I do think the best fix would be an amendment clarifying it one way or the other. I think if it went before the Supreme Court, we'd end up with another 5-4 decision that we could all fight over for the next 50 years.

 
 
 
Karri
7.1.3  Karri  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.2    one month ago
another 5-4 decision

US v Ark was decided 6-2.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Karri @7.1.3    one month ago
-2

So, you're saying there's a chance!

I think there's still a lot of debate over whether that should apply to someone who is in the country illegally. I think that's a fair question and one that is properly seen as an issue of first impression for the high Court.

Taken to the extreme, enemy combatants could give birth to citizens just by invading. There must be some place where people are willing to draw some kind of line . . . but perhaps not.

 
 
 
Karri
7.1.5  Karri  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.4    4 weeks ago
someone who is in the country illegally

If you are born in this country, you are a natural born citizen and, therefore, you are not here illegally.

Taken to the extreme, enemy combatants could give birth to citizens just by invading.

No, that has been specifically listed as not subject to the laws of the US (similar to a diplomat's.)

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.4    4 weeks ago
I think there's still a lot of debate over whether that should apply to someone who is in the country illegally.

Birthright citizenship doesn't apply to anyone in the country illegally since a person born here didn't enter illegally. 

How about those here legally just to procure dual citizenship? You know, those rich Russians that rent Trump properties in FL to have their 'anchor babies' here. 

Do you think that Trump will figure out a cut out for them in his EO? 

 
 
 
dave-2693993
7.1.7  dave-2693993  replied to  Dulay @7.1.6    4 weeks ago
How about those here legally just to procure dual citizenship? You know, those rich Russians that rent Trump properties in FL to have their 'anchor babies' here. 

Something needs to be done about them, the Chinese and everyone else playing that game.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Dulay @7.1.6    4 weeks ago
You know, those rich Russians that rent Trump properties in FL to have their 'anchor babies' here.

And Chinese... and Koreans... and... well... the wealthy from wherever.

I kinda doubt Trump objects to rich anchor babies...

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1.6    4 weeks ago
How about those here legally just to procure dual citizenship?

I'm not a fan of dual citizenship. I think you should have to pick one.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.10  Dulay  replied to  dave-2693993 @7.1.7    4 weeks ago
Something needs to be done about them, the Chinese and everyone else playing that game.

Since the alleged motivation is 'chain immigration', it's a easy fix without changing the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.9    4 weeks ago
I'm not a fan of dual citizenship. I think you should have to pick one.

When do you propose that decision be made? Does the parent make that decision or do we wait for the child to reach the age of majority? Will the US waive the fee or still charge the parent $2000+ to renounce? 

Perhaps if the IRS concentrated on nailing dual citizens for the taxes that they owe, the word would get out that there is a high price to pay for that US passport. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.1.11    4 weeks ago
When do you propose that decision be made?

When you are granted and accept citizenship in a country, that is when you should renounce citizenship in all other countries. Being a citizen is not like joining a social club. You should be fully invested. Otherwise, just be a visitor.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.12    4 weeks ago

The Supreme Court disagrees.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.13    4 weeks ago
The Supreme Court disagrees.

I wasn't thinking about the Supreme Court. You asked me about how I think things should be. You didn't ask me what current caselaw was.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.15  katrix  replied to  Dulay @7.1.10    4 weeks ago
Since the alleged motivation is 'chain immigration', it's a easy fix without changing the Constitution. 

Now that Melania's parents have used chain immigration, Trump is probably fine with eliminating it. He may want to see if any of her other relatives want citizenship first, though. Just to be on the safe side.

 
 
 
katrix
7.1.16  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.12    4 weeks ago
When you are granted and accept citizenship in a country, that is when you should renounce citizenship in all other countries.

What about children? If they're born here to legal citizens but they are also granted citizenship in another country due to their ancestry, at what age do you think they should make up their minds?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.1.16    4 weeks ago

Some adult age. 16, 18, 21. Something like that.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7.1.18  1stwarrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.13    4 weeks ago

Where?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Tacos! @7.1.14    4 weeks ago
You asked me about how I think things should be.

When did I do that?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1.18    4 weeks ago

What?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.19    4 weeks ago

You didn't, but whoever I was talking to did. If you had read the thread, you'd know that. Then you would have understood the context of my comments.

 
 
 
Karri
7.2  Karri  replied to  Tacos! @7    one month ago
Well, it's obviously not "clear" or we wouldn't have so much debate about it.

If people actually understood the Constitution and/or Civics, it would not be an issue.  It is clear under the 14th Amendment and United States vs Wong Kim Ark.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8  TᵢG    one month ago

This would require an amendment to the constitution.   Trump as PotUS has no authority here.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @8    one month ago

Exactly. EO's are limited in what they can do.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  JohnRussell    one month ago

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez made an interesting point in an interview last week. She said human beings have been migrating for thousands of years, and the places people have migrated to have always improved.  I guess exhibit A for our purposes would be the English migrating to North America in the early 17th century and beyond. 

America stole these lands. Should we really be complaining so much about those who want to walk up here and join us? 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
9.1  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago

Yes. It’s the right of every nation to determine who enters our country.  You open borders folks seek the end of our Constitutional Republic 

 
 
 
katrix
9.2  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago
America stole these lands. Should we really be complaining so much about those who want to walk up here and join us?

By that measure, pretty much everyone on earth stole the lands where they currently reside. I don't see how our stealing land from the Native Americans means we now have to let anyone who wants to join us in. Unfortunately, we can't support everyone in the world. We don't have the resources. It would be nice if we could, though.

And I certainly don't agree with AOC that the places people have migrated to have always improved. We've destroyed too many of them for that to be true.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  katrix @9.2    one month ago
By that measure, pretty much everyone on earth stole the lands where they currently reside.

Or, as John Ball said in 1381:

When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

Unsurprisingly... he was hanged, drawn, and quartered.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @9.2    one month ago
I don't see how our stealing land from the Native Americans means we now have to let anyone who wants to join us in.

These things generally go along the lines of "might makes right". We have the power to be able to say "no" you can't come in. It's not really a moral argument. If the migrants prevail then they will claim might , of a sort, was on their side. 

 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.2.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.2    4 weeks ago

 So it sounds like what we should be doing is putting up gun turrets at the border and protect our borders 

 
 
 
WallyW
9.3  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago
America stole these lands.

Native Americans never had any legal on the lands.

And they didn't defend them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @9.3    one month ago

WTF does 'did not have any legal on the lands' mean?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.3.2  Raven Wing  replied to  WallyW @9.3    one month ago
And they didn't defend them.

THAT... is a total bald faced lie! Vast Native American Tribes across the country defended their homelands against those who would exterminate them at the loss of millions of our people.

That you make such a totally false statement proves that you have not studied much of American history.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.3.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Raven Wing @9.3.2    one month ago

That's all he has Raven.

[delete]

 
 
 
Kavika
9.3.4  Kavika   replied to  WallyW @9.3    one month ago
Native Americans never had any legal on the lands. And they didn't defend them.

Another ignorant comment from someone that doesn't seem to know a damn thing about history, Native Americans, Doctrine of discovery or manifest destiny or the so called ''Indian Wars''..

Well done Wally, you secured your place among the ''know nothing party.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.3.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @9.3.4    one month ago
Another ignorant comment from someone that doesn't seem to know a damn thing about history, Native Americans, Doctrine of discovery or manifest destiny or the so called ''Indian Wars''..

Absolutely! And they call Native Americans the ignorant ones. jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.3.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  WallyW @9.3    4 weeks ago

Native American culture had zero concept of land ownership. That was something the Europeans brought with them.

 
 
 
Kavika
9.3.7  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.3.6    4 weeks ago
Native American culture had zero concept of land ownership. That was something the Europeans brought with them.

American Indians viewed themselves as caretakers of the land not owners. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.3.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @9.3.7    4 weeks ago
American Indians viewed themselves as caretakers of the land not owners. 

Correct. The land belongs to the Creator, not Mankind. Thus, Man cannot buy or sell land that does not belong them. 

We are only the caretakers of that which belongs only to the Creator. It is our duty to ensure the protection of Mother Earth and Father Sky, as they ensure the continued existence of Mankind on this planet. If we do not do our part to ensure their well being, then the existence of Mankind itself may cease to exist. 

Mankind exists on Mother Earth only at the grace of the Creator. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.3.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  WallyW @9.3    4 weeks ago

Question for Moderators:

The following is false. More importantly, it is profoundly offensive. Like telling a Jew that they should have defended themselves in 1930s Germany...

Native Americans never had any legal on the lands.

And they didn't defend them.

This post is vile. It contributes nothing.

Why does NT allow such awful crap?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.3.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Raven Wing @9.3.8    4 weeks ago
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.

From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

                                                                         -- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.3.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  WallyW @9.3    4 weeks ago

Wally,

I am truly shocked by that statement. What do you think Wounded Knee was?

The French and Indian War?

Your teachers must have missed that. Indian history was often overlooked in our generation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.3.11    4 weeks ago
Indian history was often overlooked in our generation.

It is part of US History and you are right it is woefully overlooked. You mentioned Wounded Knee. You should explain it a bit, for those who still don't know. It was the final battle in the conflict between the Indian tribes of the west and the US. It was almost destined to happen - a fate that was sealed when the 7th Calvary was massacred at the Little Big Horn. It was then that the U.S. military committed itself to defeating any Indian resistance to forced resettlement.

It was thanks to a book published in 1971, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, which became a surprise best seller and brought the name of that terrible massacre to to the attention of the general public. Does anyone remember that?
To be fair, the author, Dee Brown told his story  (a history of the west) from the Indian point of view. It is a book I recommend for all Americans.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.3.13  Dulay  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.3.6    4 weeks ago
Native American culture had zero concept of land ownership. That was something the Europeans brought with them.

Yet when Native American Tribes recognized the concept of land ownership and signed treaties to codify that ownership the 'Europeans' and then the US, the Europeans and the US violated every single one of them and continue to do so to this day. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.3.6    4 weeks ago
Native American culture had zero concept of land ownership. That was something the Europeans brought with them.

So what?  

Is it your opinion that because some European says "now I own the land your people have lived on for hundreds of years" and "i have a piece of paper to prove it" that the Indians should have or needed to recognize such nonsense?  The political philosopher John Locke invented the concept of 'land ownership goes to the person who fences it off and plows it.' Such a basis for land ownership is arbitrary.  Such a concept is acceptable if everyone agrees with it. What if the people whose ancestors have been living there for many generations dont agree?  Why were the white man's rules more convincing than the Indians rules?  Because might made right. What a moral philosophy like that one ends up meaning though is that the only thing that matters is the outcome. If immigrants from south of the border succeed in entering the US in large numbers that means it was RIGHT. 

If you want to use past history as a marker. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.14    4 weeks ago
Because might made right. What a moral philosophy like that one ends up meaning though is that the only thing that matters is the outcome.

I am sure the Cree and Assiniboine tribes who suffered at the hands of the Dakota Sioux would agree. Yup, might dosen't make right!

Thanks John

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.3.16  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3.15    4 weeks ago
Cree and Assiniboine tribes who suffered at the hands of the Dakota Sioux

One Indian killed another... thus justifying the White Man's extermination of all Indians...

Is that what you're saying, Vic?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @9    4 weeks ago

"America stole these lands."

Funny, so did everybody else before us. The only people not guilty of such were those that crossed the Bering land bridge thousands of years ago. Countless native tribes displaced one another over the centuries until the first European settlers arrived here.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
9.4.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.4    4 weeks ago

Correct - and we had piss poor immigration policies - and it shows.

 
 
 
Kavika
9.4.2  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @9.4    4 weeks ago

I'm sure those darn Indian displaced one another..../s

indianland.jpg

How about the ''Tribal Termination Act of 1953'' another 2.5  million acres were taken...Oh, did I mention the Dawes act the tens of million acres of land that was taken....

The U.S. government ignored the treaties or changed the law to fit their needs and million and millions of acres were taken from the Indian community. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
9.4.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @9.4.2    4 weeks ago

And the greed of our government and their big money donors continue to take that which was guaranteed to the Native Americans, in order to fill their own greedy pockets.

Most of the treaties and promises that the government made to the Native Americans have never been kept in order to feed the greed of those who do not feel it is necessary to keep their word.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.4.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Raven Wing @9.4.3    4 weeks ago

America was already a plutocracy.

Now it is also a kleptocracy...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10  Bob Nelson    one month ago

It'sresting.

Our right-wing members, who generally are so vociferous in defending a simplistic interpretation of the Constitution, are silent...

 
 
 
lady in black
11  lady in black    one month ago

But, but, but I thought trumptards were all about the Constitution.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  lady in black @11    one month ago

Just like they were absolutely against deficits... when a Democrat was President...

 
 
 
livefreeordie
12  livefreeordie    one month ago

NO one should be granted citizenship because their parents broke the law. And the 14th Amendment NEVER contemplated doing so.

“Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have the English common law practice in mind since existing allegiance was largely irrelevant.

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)”

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @12    one month ago

The federalist is a bunch of bullshit and lies.  

 
 
 
livefreeordie
12.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @12.1    one month ago

Quoting US history and Supreme Court Decisions is lying.

[deleted]

 
 
 
livefreeordie
12.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.1    one month ago

[Deleted.]

[The only editing was the deletion of a sentence which included an insult.  The remaining part of your comment is exactly as you typed it.]

 
 
 
Split Personality
12.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Tessylo @12.1    one month ago

Well, it's certainly a blog site associated with The Federalist,

the article itself is an opinion piece from 2007, (admittedly repaired from a corrupted version sometime in 2016).

While people tend to twist themselves into a pretzel trying to define what the meaning of "natural born citizen " means, the 14TH Amendment is pretty straight forward. "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." 

If Trump or anyone else wants to change the 14th Amendment, there is a path through Congress or if 2/3s of the states demand a Constitutional Convention.

Neither is likely to happen IMHO.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.3    one month ago
'While people tend to twist themselves into a pretzel trying to define what the meaning of "natural born citizen " means, the 14TH Amendment is pretty straight forward. "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." 

Yeah, like this nonsense:  'Thus, the statute can be read as'

 
 
 
WallyW
12.1.5  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @12.1    one month ago

That's the anchor baby that you're talking about.

How does that make the parents citizens?

Explain the applicable law.

Laws can be modified or overturned

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @12.1.5    one month ago

WTF are you talking about?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
12.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.6    one month ago
WTF are you talking about?

jrSmiley_74_smiley_image.gif I don't think he has a clue.  

 
 
 
Karri
12.1.8  Karri  replied to  livefreeordie @12.1.1    one month ago
Supreme Court Decisions

How about the SCOTUS in 1898?  They said if you are born here, you are a citizen by birth.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to  Karri @12.1.8    one month ago

Show me.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.10  1stwarrior  replied to  Split Personality @12.1.3    one month ago

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard, clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

In 1898, in the case United States vs Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying out business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
12.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.10    one month ago
With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child.

Even within your unConstitutional argument...this makes no sense.

Allegiance goes from the person to the state. If a person says, "I swear allegiance..." that's the end of it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.13  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.1.11    one month ago
'this makes no sense.'

per usual

 
 
 
Karri
12.1.14  Karri  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.9    4 weeks ago
Show me.

The Ark decision is well known.  It has been discussed here in multiple posts.  If you still don't know about it, you can Google it.  

 
 
 
Raven Wing
12.1.15  Raven Wing  replied to  Karri @12.1.14    4 weeks ago
If you still don't know about it, you can Google it.  

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Karri
12.1.16  Karri  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.10    4 weeks ago
subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

This refers to whether or not they are subject to our laws.  Diplomatic immunity keeps foreign diplomats from being arrested -- or even being forced to pay a traffic ticket.  Therefore, they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  Therefore, their children are not natural born citizens.

If an undocumented immigrant breaks the law, they are subject to arrest and imprisonment, therefore they ARE "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  Therefore, their children ARE natural born citizens. (Same goes for those here on a tourist visa.)

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.17  1stwarrior  replied to  Karri @12.1.16    4 weeks ago

Karri - you really need to get a better grasp on your immigration law before you attempt to educate others.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.18  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.17    4 weeks ago

[delete]

 
 
 
Karri
12.1.19  Karri  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.17    4 weeks ago

Please go back and read @ 12.1.10 (yes, YOUR post).  If you read it carefully, we are basically saying the same thing.  As you said

This 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons .

In other words, it includes everyone who is not an ambassador or foreign minister (aka diplomat).  I also pointed this out.  Except for diplomats with immunity, everyone is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and, therefore, any child of theirs is a natural born citizen.

Perhaps you should do a little research before you tell someone they don't know immigration.  

According to Barron Law

Anyone who is born in the United States including most cases Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, is a United States citizen at birth. There is a very limited exception to this rule, and that is that a person born in the United States to a foreign diplomat is not necessarily a United States citizen. Your United States birth certificate is proof of your citizenship status.

According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services :

A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe. [1]

According to Wikipedia :

Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to any person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (known as jus soli).[2] This includes the territories of Puerto Rico, the Marianas (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), and the U.S. Virgin Islands.[3][4

So, I have now given you legal sources for my statement that anyone born in the US (other than certain children of diplomats) are US citizens by birth.  Upon what do you base your opinion that other US born children are not citizens?  (Please use reliable, non-partisan sources, as I have.)   Jus soli  has been a long accepted tenent of US law.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.20  1stwarrior  replied to  Karri @12.1.19    4 weeks ago

As long as the parent is NOT a citizen of the U.S. at the time of birth, the child is under the legal jurisdiction of its parents.

Yes, Illegal Aliens are covered under our laws - most of them - but they are NOT under the jurisdiction of the U.S. because their allegiance is to their home country.

You should have continued reading the definitions of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants. Jus soli in many cases helps prevent statelessness. Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are obligated to grant nationality to persons born in their territory who would otherwise become stateless persons. The American Convention on Human Rights similarly provides that "Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality.

Illegal Aliens are NOT stateless peoples until, and only until, they take the oath of allegiance of their new state/country.  As such, their children, wherever they are born, are also not stateless peoples as they are tied to their parent's State through their parent's oath of allegiance/citizenship standards.

When a case actually addressing anchor babies/children born to Illegal Aliens reaches SCOTUS, the present "practice" of GIVING citizenship to a new-borne will be declared improper and that the INTENT of the authors of the "citizenship" section of the 14th will become the actual law that will be followed.

 
 
 
Karri
12.1.21  Karri  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.20    4 weeks ago

You stated that I needed a better grasp of immigration law so I went to reliable, non-political sources to point out the meaning of "jurisdiction" and the what the law considers birthright citizenship.  Your rebuttal consisted of the same baseless opinions you had listed before -- and which I completely rebutted.

Please, what is your basis of your opinion?  Please provide unbiased, reliable, non-political sources for this. If you cannot do this, I suggest you rephrase your comment @12.1.17.  It appears that my knowledge does indeed outrank yours in this instance.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
12.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  Karri @12.1.21    4 weeks ago

Karri,

Rebutting is pointless. You can disprove something a hundred times... and the zombie will always rise again.

Facts don't matter, reality doesn't matter....

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.23  1stwarrior  replied to  Karri @12.1.21    4 weeks ago

Karrie - please don't try to go there. My qualifications on this subject outweighs the need to discuss in depth on this thread.

And Tess - no, she did not "school" me.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.24  1stwarrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @12.1.22    4 weeks ago

You're speaking of your own opinions Bob?

 
 
 
Karri
12.1.25  Karri  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.23    4 weeks ago
My qualifications on this subject

What are your qualifications?  (Serious question)

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.26  1stwarrior  replied to  Karri @12.1.25    4 weeks ago

Federal Indian Law Attorney who's worked on immigration.

Yours?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.27  1stwarrior  replied to  Karri @12.1.21    4 weeks ago

Karri - in a nutshell, when and if (which I sincerely hope happens) an immigration case hits SCOTUS's calendar, their primary concern is going to be reviewing the entire law, starting with the "intent" of the law, which is the complete foundation of the law.  As stated previously, the authors of the "citizenship" portion of the 14th Amendment, during discussion of the "intent" of the requirements for citizenship at birth, explained their "intent" of their insertion of the description of their clause.

The court's Clerks will then be given the task(s) of conducting research into/on all citizenship cases and sorting through them until they get just a few binders of cases, i.e. case laws, that they can/will use in their further research.  Each case will need to be directly applicable to the definition of the "intent" as decided and placed in the search engines.

The intent of the birth rights described in the "citizenship" portion of the 14th will be the primary focus of the judges in their decision making after having reviewed all the available case law and precedents established by those cases.

The starting place is from 1866 - the discussion of the 14th Amendment.

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

"Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now

That, Karrie, will be the starting point for the court cases - the "intent" of the law, not the bastardized version the Dems/Libs are using now.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.28  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.23    4 weeks ago

Sure she did.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
13  Thrawn 31    4 weeks ago

But he can't. And as usual he looks like the fucking idiot he is.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JBB
Ender
igknorantzrulz
CB
dave-2693993


42 visitors