Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[Orangesapples 1,954]

1 hour ago, Marty Byrde said:

Well he may say crazy stuff at times but his policies have this country doing the best it has economically in the last 40 years.

 

North Korea is not firing missiles at Japan 

 

Remember ISIS the junior varsity.  Yup not in the news so much huh

 

Tax revenues are highest in years.

 

He doesn't say crazy things at times, he says crazy and stupid things all the time. He can't even talk about a hurricane properly ("one of the wettest from the standpoint of water"). 

 

Trump has nothing to do with the current economic situation because 2 years is not enough time for any influence to show, not to mention that these things are very complicated and don't have a simple cause. 

 

North Korea - well, Trump said that he fell in love with Kim Jong Un after they exchanged letters, so I don't know what to even say about that (he literally said that, you can find the video if you don't believe me). 

 

The South Korean president is the one actually making changes with North Korea. Trump had the world laugh at him, literally (the UN leaders couldn't help it when he was bragging like an idiot). 

 

Trump is a charismatic liar who talks to crowds and tells them whatever they want to hear and then goes ahead and says the exact opposite thing on the next day. 

 

Also, there are many accounts from people working at the White House saying that Trump barely does anything and works no more than 3 hours a day. He also apparently doesn't read intelligence memos and he doesn't listen to any reports. So he's not doing any work that has substance, he's just talking and tweeting. 

[TBoneTX 45,299]

This thread is about the birthright citizenship topic.  Those wishing to comment on other issues or general situations may start their own thread.

[Dashinka 24,505]

13 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

He doesn't say crazy things at times, he says crazy and stupid things all the time. He can't even talk about a hurricane properly ("one of the wettest from the standpoint of water"). 

 

Trump has nothing to do with the current economic situation because 2 years is not enough time for any influence to show, not to mention that these things are very complicated and don't have a simple cause. 

 

North Korea - well, Trump said that he fell in love with Kim Jong Un after they exchanged letters, so I don't know what to even say about that (he literally said that, you can find the video if you don't believe me). 

 

The South Korean president is the one actually making changes with North Korea. Trump had the world laugh at him, literally (the UN leaders couldn't help it when he was bragging like an idiot). 

 

Trump is a charismatic liar who talks to crowds and tells them whatever they want to hear and then goes ahead and says the exact opposite thing on the next day. 

 

Also, there are many accounts from people working at the White House saying that Trump barely does anything and works no more than 3 hours a day. He also apparently doesn't read intelligence memos and he doesn't listen to any reports. So he's not doing any work that has substance, he's just talking and tweeting. 

Actually, I just returned from South Korea, and quite a few folks there are very happy with Trump.  It is obvious you would rather have someone with a better political resume that speaks out of both sides of their mouths.  We have Trump for two to six more years, then we get someone else that will also polarize half the population.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

22 hours ago, jg121783 said:

I would like to see the supreme court rule on whether or not illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US because if not the 14th amendment doesn't apply to their children.

 

   Even if they did rule that way, jurisdiction would apply separately to the child. In many cases a child would derive the citizenship of the parents and US law could be changed to reflect that if the child has citizenship of another country they would not automatically get US citizenship.

 

  For children born in the US without citizenship in another country, they are subject to US jurisdiction by definition, regardless of the status of their parents. The alternative would be to have them stateless, in which case they would still be subject to US jurisdiction but lacking any other legal status anywhere. 

 

  I would also point out that a ruling making illegal aliens not subject to US jurisdiction does open a separate can of worms. It would mean all legal issues would have to go through the country of origin. A current example is what we see with foreign diplomats. Children born to diplomats do not get US citizenship, but diplomats are immune to several aspects of US law. They can not be arrested or detained except in exceptional circumstances, they can't be searched, have property seized, or be sued in civil court. 

 

  

[jg121783 3,915]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Even if they did rule that way, jurisdiction would apply separately to the child. In many cases a child would derive the citizenship of the parents and US law could be changed to reflect that if the child has citizenship of another country they would not automatically get US citizenship.

 

  For children born in the US without citizenship in another country, they are subject to US jurisdiction by definition, regardless of the status of their parents. The alternative would be to have them stateless, in which case they would still be subject to US jurisdiction but lacking any other legal status anywhere. 

 

  I would also point out that a ruling making illegal aliens not subject to US jurisdiction does open a separate can of worms. It would mean all legal issues would have to go through the country of origin. A current example is what we see with foreign diplomats. Children born to diplomats do not get US citizenship, but diplomats are immune to several aspects of US law. They can not be arrested or detained except in exceptional circumstances, they can't be searched, have property seized, or be sued in civil court. 

 

  

That all may be true if the word jurisdiction in this context meant what you think it does. According to the people who wrote the 14th amendment jurisdiction means not owing allegence to another nation. It has nothing to do with being under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US and/or states. Anyone who sets foot in the US is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US and whatever state they are in regardless of immigration status. In fact the writers of the 14th amendment stated very clearly on multiple occasions that the 14th amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are citizens of another nation. The sole purpose of the 14th amendment was to recognize the citizenship of children of slaves as slaves at the time were not inherently recognized as citizens. Seems pretty clear to me that the 14th amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens and the president does in fact have the authority to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for a group of people who never had that right to begin with. But as I stated before we can let the supreme court sort that out.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

That all may be true if the word jurisdiction in this context meant what you think it does. According to the people who wrote the 14th amendment jurisdiction means not owing allegence to another nation. It has nothing to do with being under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US and/or states. Anyone who sets foot in the US is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the US and whatever state they are in regardless of immigration status. In fact the writers of the 14th amendment stated very clearly on multiple occasions that the 14th amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to children born to parents who are citizens of another nation. The sole purpose of the 14th amendment was to recognize the citizenship of children of slaves as slaves at the time were not inherently recognized as citizens. Seems pretty clear to me that the 14th amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens and the president does in fact have the authority to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for a group of people who never had that right to begin with. But as I stated before we can let the supreme court sort that out.

 

    If they resolve it the way you stated, it would be the opposite of current practice. That seems to indicate it's not that clear at all, based on prior supreme court rulings, or that they got it wrong for the last 150 years or so. I'm not sure it's going to change without a constitutional change. 

 

   The way you stated your interpretation would probably mean that a child born in the USA to 2 LPR parents would also not be a USC. Do you think that should be also be the case? 

[Dashinka 24,505]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    If they resolve it the way you stated, it would be the opposite of current practice. That seems to indicate it's not that clear at all, based on prior supreme court rulings, or that they got it wrong for the last 150 years or so. I'm not sure it's going to change without a constitutional change. 

 

   The way you stated your interpretation would probably mean that a child born in the USA to 2 LPR parents would also not be a USC. Do you think that should be also be the case? 

I think this is the issue.  Maybe it is time to get the question answered.

 

United States: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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".^[33] The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.^[34] The concept of birthright citizenship applying to the child born of a foreign national in the country without proper credentials has never been formally litigated. However, it was briefly discussed in the dissenting opinion of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).^[35]

 

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

 

[TBoneTX 45,299]

Please read, digest, and comment thoughtfully:

Quote

The 14th Amendment Does Not Mandate Birthright Citizenship

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
November 3, 2018 3:30 AM

It was about removing vestiges of slavery, not regulating aliens.

Shortly after the Constitution went into effect, the first Congress enacted a naturalization law. Lawmakers superseded this statute just five years later. Both provisions derived from the Constitution’s grant to the legislature (in Article I, Section 8 ) of the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That grant, along with these naturalization statutes of 1790 and 1795, edifies us about the Framers’ conception of citizenship, and of the status of aliens and their children.

Status questions about the children of aliens have moved to the fore in recent months. Central Americans, enticed by laws that perversely incentivize illegal immigration, have sought entry en masse at our southern border. This week, with an oncoming “caravan” of migrants galvanizing President Trump’s base on the eve of the midterm elections, these questions have stoked a heated debate — with all the shopworn smears of racism and bad faith that are now staples of American public discourse.

In campaign mode, the president floated the idea of issuing an executive order that would purport to deny “birthright citizenship,” i.e., to end the policy of granting American citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents who are not legally present here. I highlight “purport” and “policy” because the president’s opponents counter that these newborn children of illegal aliens are granted citizenship by the Constitution, specifically, by the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the argument goes, this grant of citizenship is not a mere policy but a command of the highest law of the land; it may not be reversed by an executive order, or even by a law of Congress, the branch empowered to set the terms of citizenship.

Article continues: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/
 

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by TBoneTX

[Dashinka 24,505]

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Please read, digest, and comment thoughtfully:

Great read, thanks.  I agree with Andrew McCarthy that an EO is not the way to go, but rather Congress does have the power to end jus soli via its Article I powers.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

On 11/3/2018 at 11:40 PM, TBoneTX said:

Please read, digest, and comment thoughtfully:

The national review? Please, don't insult our intelligence. 

[TBoneTX 45,299]

Then provide a counter-viewpoint from a source that you consider reliable.

[Mountain Climber 186]

On 11/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, Orangesapples said:

The Supreme Court would, too. 

 

If it was that easy to change the constitution, then they should just remove the outdated 2nd amendment which no longer makes sense in the modern world. 

There's everything wrong with Trump outright lying that he can change the constitution with a an Executive order. 

 

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order. 

 

We’re the country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years... "

 

It's just wrong that he can change it with an executive order and he's shamelessly lying about it. He's also lying that the US is the only country with birthright citizenship (although, of course, it's the only country that gives people a US citizenship but it wouldn't make sense for Brazil or Japan to give US citizenship to people born there, so either the president is terrible at expressing a coherent thought or he's making meaningless statements). 

 

I don't understand why so many people are defending this conman. He's a proven crook and liar and he contradicts himself all the time. He also says stupid and nonsensical things all the time. Nobody should ever pay attention to his rant about how he will end birthright citizenship because it's pure nonsense. If he wants to start a conversation about it, he should try doing so in a more intelligent and honest way, without outright lying and spreading false facts ("alternative facts"). 

 

  Hilary IS a proven crook and liar, along with her husband Bill.  Did you scream and gnash your teeth when she was running for president?

[Boiler 45,519]

12 minutes ago, Mountain Climber said:

  Hilary IS a proven crook and liar, along with her husband Bill.  Did you scream and gnash your teeth when she was running for president?

Was a proven crook and yet most people still voted for her?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

15 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Was a proven crook and yet most people still voted for her?

Truth be told she was so repugnant she got beat by one of the most unelectable republicans in the history of the USA

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, Marty Byrde said:

Truth be told she was so repugnant she got beat by one of the most unelectable republicans in the history of the USA

You just won the internetz with this post!!