Making America Great Again: President Trump Seriously Looking At Ending Birthright Citizenship

[pknopp]

IMO, we are doing, and have done way too much. There is a point at which generosity becomes foolish and self destructive, and we passed that point long ago.

It's the "what have you done for me lately" stance that is so irritating. The problem is our generosity has spoiled the rest of the world, particularly south of us.

I listen to the Salem Broadcasting station a lot because they have pretty good hosts. They are constantly holding fund raisers for people in other countries to make their lives a little better. Salem is just one, there are hundreds if not thousands for private charities in this country that reach out to foreigners in need.

Does anybody really appreciate what we do for them? Hell no. It's usually people saying we aren't doing enough and we need to do much more.

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's the "what have you done for me lately" stance that is so irritating. The problem is our generosity has spoiled the rest of the world, particularly south of us.

I listen to the Salem Broadcasting station a lot because they have pretty good hosts. They are constantly holding fund raisers for people in other countries to make their lives a little better. Salem is just one, there are hundreds if not thousands for private charities in this country that reach out to foreigners in need.

Does anybody really appreciate what we do for them? Hell no. It's usually people saying we aren't doing enough and we need to do much more.

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.

The spread of Communism was not a "direct" threat to the US years ago. But let me ask: if we allowed it to expand, and 4/5 of the world ended up under some sort of Communist or dictatorship governments, what would we do if they united and did become a direct threat?

First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out..............

 

[pknopp]

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.

Sorry, fair enough, yes there was an imaginary threat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.

Sorry, fair enough, yes there was an imaginary threat.

Imaginary threat, huh? Then let me ask: we knew Bin Laden was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. We did nothing because it was not a direct threat to the US. Our government virtually laughed at the guy. Do you think we did the right thing?

We cannot wait until these "imaginary threats" become a direct threat because by then it's too late. On that note, you will not find one chess master that ever became a champion by only concentrating on the next move only. That's what amateur chess players do.

 

[pknopp]

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.

Sorry, fair enough, yes there was an imaginary threat.

Imaginary threat, huh? Then let me ask: we knew Bin Laden was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. We did nothing because it was not a direct threat to the US. Our government virtually laughed at the guy. Do you think we did the right thing?

We cannot wait until these "imaginary threats" become a direct threat because by then it's too late. On that note, you will not find one chess master that ever became a champion by only concentrating on the next move only. That's what amateur chess players do.

You are arguing to invade the entire world.

We armed OBL because of the idea you support. We funded the caves he hid in because of the ideas you support. He did what he did because of the ideas you support.

 

[Issa]

All ethnicities came here for a better opportunity i including whites. Why you feel so special as a white person?

Yes they did, and they came here legally.

The US allows nearly a million people a year to become citizens of this great country. That's on top of all the generous VISA's and work permits we provide so outsiders have the ability to take advantage of everything we created. Name me one civilized country that people want to live that comes close to what we offer.

We are doing enough for outsiders. In fact we are doing more than enough. This is our country and everybody wants to come in. But like a great restaurant or great exhibit, you simply have to wait your turn, and you may never get in because of the high demand.

IMO, we are doing, and have done way too much. There is a point at which generosity becomes foolish and self destructive, and we passed that point long ago.

It's the "what have you done for me lately" stance that is so irritating. The problem is our generosity has spoiled the rest of the world, particularly south of us.

I listen to the Salem Broadcasting station a lot because they have pretty good hosts. They are constantly holding fund raisers for people in other countries to make their lives a little better. Salem is just one, there are hundreds if not thousands for private charities in this country that reach out to foreigners in need.

Does anybody really appreciate what we do for them? Hell no. It's usually people saying we aren't doing enough and we need to do much more.

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Hummm
Iraq invasion?
Vketnam ?
Central America?
Lybia?
Panama?
And. Countless coups and backing of dictators around the world? Isnr that so that the US installs puppets so its companies have easy access?
It is called modern day imperialism, we have bases all over the world for a reason.

 

[Issa]

Here is how I see it...God made this land for his people , laws dont and wont matter...as you made it here or your ancestors others will. I rather have an illegal who works his ass off to better the life of his family, than a fat fuck in the middle of America who cant even walk straight and spends all day bashing minorities online. Survival of the fittest....I say let's trade all the useless obese rednecks with hardworking Latinos if you really love America.

So, you don't respect the laws of the land, nor the rights of it' citizens to even make laws.


You are actively hostile to them, and you see this immigration as a survival of the fittest and you side those coming in against your fellow American citizens specifically, those "useless obese rural poor whites".


How is it, that in your mind, that is not racist of you, nor traitorous of your, nor even just plain evil?


BUT, btw, thanks for your honesty. I know that what you said, is the position of most liberals, they just mostly choose to lie.

I'm a not a liberal, I'm a human being who wants the best for everyone. Those who endure thousands of miles and risk their lives to come here should be given a helping hand like the ones before them. I fly around the US and I see vast empty lands and Ron's of things to do...I see a need for hardworking people everywhere, I see also millions that donr nothing but spread fear mongering.
That been said I do respect the law of the land, doesnt nean that everything the law says is just....there is a difference between law and justice.

Your hostility to the laws and the citizens of this nation are clear, especially the white ones.


Rationalizing your enmity, as "fairness" or "justice" is noted and dismissed.


So, when you see white nationalists chanting, "you will not replace us" and all the libs are attacking those people as evil and racist,


do you laugh at them for being too stupid to see that the plan IS to, as you said, "trade" white guys for "hard working Latinos" or do you think that they are just lying to fool the stupid?

The way you come up with your conclusions is strange.
No I have nothing against the white race, I just use the same logic the racists of this board who think whites are superior.
And no I love this country, respect it and would fight for it...thay been said it has so many flaws that needs to be fixed.

I said if white nationalists really love the well being of America, they should call for the trading of the useless whites out there for hard working minorities for example. I live in west LA 90% or so of the beggars for example are white.

Your enmity and hate is plain to see, from your position that Americans, especially white Americans, don't have the Right of Self Determination, to your obvious racist hatred of white Americans.



It it boring to keep harping on it. On the rare occasions that a liberal like yourself decides to be honest, I prefer to take the opportunity to get some straight answers.



I asked a question about how you feel about your fellow liberals who lie about the agenda you have admitted to.


So, do you consider them fools, or do you consider them cowards for their lies? Or some third option?

I'm not a liberal hence your question is void. I also dont hate whites.
Come again.

 

[Issa]

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.

The spread of Communism was not a "direct" threat to the US years ago. But let me ask: if we allowed it to expand, and 4/5 of the world ended up under some sort of Communist or dictatorship governments, what would we do if they united and did become a direct threat?

First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out..............

Blame everything on communism...the US ruined so many countries and it isnt a shame to re organize the shame when one tries and change what happened.

 

[Correll]

It's the "what have you done for me lately" stance that is so irritating. The problem is our generosity has spoiled the rest of the world, particularly south of us.

I listen to the Salem Broadcasting station a lot because they have pretty good hosts. They are constantly holding fund raisers for people in other countries to make their lives a little better. Salem is just one, there are hundreds if not thousands for private charities in this country that reach out to foreigners in need.

Does anybody really appreciate what we do for them? Hell no. It's usually people saying we aren't doing enough and we need to do much more.

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?

 

[Correll]

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.

Sorry, fair enough, yes there was an imaginary threat.

Imaginary threat, huh? Then let me ask: we knew Bin Laden was running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. We did nothing because it was not a direct threat to the US. Our government virtually laughed at the guy. Do you think we did the right thing?

We cannot wait until these "imaginary threats" become a direct threat because by then it's too late. On that note, you will not find one chess master that ever became a champion by only concentrating on the next move only. That's what amateur chess players do.

 

[Correll]

Yes they did, and they came here legally.

The US allows nearly a million people a year to become citizens of this great country. That's on top of all the generous VISA's and work permits we provide so outsiders have the ability to take advantage of everything we created. Name me one civilized country that people want to live that comes close to what we offer.

We are doing enough for outsiders. In fact we are doing more than enough. This is our country and everybody wants to come in. But like a great restaurant or great exhibit, you simply have to wait your turn, and you may never get in because of the high demand.

IMO, we are doing, and have done way too much. There is a point at which generosity becomes foolish and self destructive, and we passed that point long ago.

It's the "what have you done for me lately" stance that is so irritating. The problem is our generosity has spoiled the rest of the world, particularly south of us.

I listen to the Salem Broadcasting station a lot because they have pretty good hosts. They are constantly holding fund raisers for people in other countries to make their lives a little better. Salem is just one, there are hundreds if not thousands for private charities in this country that reach out to foreigners in need.

Does anybody really appreciate what we do for them? Hell no. It's usually people saying we aren't doing enough and we need to do much more.

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Hummm
Iraq invasion?....
It is called modern day imperialism, we have bases all over the world for a reason.

Show me one example of US paying less than market value for any oil, or admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

 

[Correll]

So, you don't respect the laws of the land, nor the rights of it' citizens to even make laws.


You are actively hostile to them, and you see this immigration as a survival of the fittest and you side those coming in against your fellow American citizens specifically, those "useless obese rural poor whites".


How is it, that in your mind, that is not racist of you, nor traitorous of your, nor even just plain evil?


BUT, btw, thanks for your honesty. I know that what you said, is the position of most liberals, they just mostly choose to lie.

I'm a not a liberal, I'm a human being who wants the best for everyone. Those who endure thousands of miles and risk their lives to come here should be given a helping hand like the ones before them. I fly around the US and I see vast empty lands and Ron's of things to do...I see a need for hardworking people everywhere, I see also millions that donr nothing but spread fear mongering.
That been said I do respect the law of the land, doesnt nean that everything the law says is just....there is a difference between law and justice.

Your hostility to the laws and the citizens of this nation are clear, especially the white ones.


Rationalizing your enmity, as "fairness" or "justice" is noted and dismissed.


So, when you see white nationalists chanting, "you will not replace us" and all the libs are attacking those people as evil and racist,


do you laugh at them for being too stupid to see that the plan IS to, as you said, "trade" white guys for "hard working Latinos" or do you think that they are just lying to fool the stupid?

The way you come up with your conclusions is strange.
No I have nothing against the white race, I just use the same logic the racists of this board who think whites are superior.
And no I love this country, respect it and would fight for it...thay been said it has so many flaws that needs to be fixed.

I said if white nationalists really love the well being of America, they should call for the trading of the useless whites out there for hard working minorities for example. I live in west LA 90% or so of the beggars for example are white.

Your enmity and hate is plain to see, from your position that Americans, especially white Americans, don't have the Right of Self Determination, to your obvious racist hatred of white Americans.



It it boring to keep harping on it. On the rare occasions that a liberal like yourself decides to be honest, I prefer to take the opportunity to get some straight answers.



I asked a question about how you feel about your fellow liberals who lie about the agenda you have admitted to.


So, do you consider them fools, or do you consider them cowards for their lies? Or some third option?

I'm not a liberal hence your question is void. I also dont hate whites.
Come again.

Dude. You've gloated about replacing whites with Latinos, in genocidal terms (survival of the fittest) and asserted that you dont' respect any laws that interfere with that.


You are not a "liberal" in the traditional sense of the word, but then no modern libs are.


You are trying to deflect from an embarrassing admission with an argument about semantics,


which is just what a lib would do.



I'm sorry to see you walking back your honesty. Did you realize you made a mistake or did someone talk to you about it?

 

[Correll]

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

If that's your stance, then I suggest you reread post number 115 where I said "some kind of threat" not a direct threat which is what started this particular debate.

The spread of Communism was not a "direct" threat to the US years ago. But let me ask: if we allowed it to expand, and 4/5 of the world ended up under some sort of Communist or dictatorship governments, what would we do if they united and did become a direct threat?

First they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish, so I did not speak out..............

Blame everything on communism...the US ruined so many countries and it isnt a shame to re organize the shame when one tries and change what happened.

He was not blaming everything on communism. He was putting some of our actions in the context of the Cold War.


You seem to hate America. Are you a Marxist?

 

[pknopp]

Dont forget that the US doesnt give without taking. We have our hands on natural resources, markets, advantages because of our military might...we also fucked up lot of countries and that's why their citizens ome here. Dont act holly.

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?

No they weren't and the excuse Bush used was Nuclear (remember how he could not pronounce that). Well, they were a threat to sell their oil to countries we didn't want them to.

 

[DBA]

It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:

"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.



President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship

White nationalists trying to slow down the demographics change lol....keep on living in fear and paranoia.

You mean Americans who love America? Lefties need to get out a little into the real US, not these pits in large cities that are made up of hundreds of different demographic neighborhoods each practicing their own culture. There is some assimilation, but much seperation. That is not the future the heatland of America wants, and no it is not because of racism, it is to retain our American heritage.

 

[Correll]

No, we have our hands on resources through negotiations with private companies, not the government. The only countries we fuck up are those who present some sort of thereat to us or our allies, and we don't owe anybody a thing because of it.

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?

No they weren't and the excuse Bush used was Nuclear (remember how he could not pronounce that). Well, they were a threat to sell their oil to countries we didn't want them to.

I just posted a picture of them burning as much of the world's oil supply that they could, and you are denying they were a threat to the world's oil supply?


LOL!!!!!

 

[pknopp]

Iraq was no threat to us. Syria was no threat to us. Yemen was no threat to us. Libya was no threat to us. Vietnam was no threat to us. North Korea was not threat to us.

We lost in all of them at that.

Not directly a threat to US.


By that logic, Nazi Germany wasn't a direct threat to US. Should we have let them go at it?

The argument was that we only attack countries that were a threat to us. As you note, none were.

Iraq was a threat to the world's oil supply. Remember this?

No they weren't and the excuse Bush used was Nuclear (remember how he could not pronounce that). Well, they were a threat to sell their oil to countries we didn't want them to.

I just posted a picture of them burning as much of the world's oil supply that they could, and you are denying they were a threat to the world's oil supply?


LOL!!!!!

The pic is from Kuwait. That "war" which we still do not know the truth over was over with.

 

[Nosmo King]

It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:

"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.



President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship

You have no problem cherry picking the 14th amendment.

Is it twelve times easier to do compared to the 2nd amendment? That one was written tomsuppli,met the army with well regulated militias!

 

[OldLady]

It's the next step in making America great again. Birthright Citizenship refers to Citizen parents, not Illegals. The 14th Amendment was only created for slaves after the civil war. It was not created for foreigners. Let's hear from the man who wrote the Citizenship clause himself, Senator John Jacob Howard:

"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.



President Trump Says He Is Still "Looking Seriously" at Ending Birthright Citizenship

I can see granting US citizenship only to children who have one parent living here LEGALLY. That is easy enough to prove. However, using a term as fuzzy as "foreigners" is never going to cut it. By law, immigrants who WANT to become citizens must live in the US FIVE YEARS before applying for naturalization. They are foreigners who plan to become citizens and of course want their children to be, as well, since they will be raised here.

I agree that Chinese women who travel here on a tourist visa to have a baby and then fly back to China with a US citizen child is BULLSHIT. So is granting citizenship to the children of two illegals living in the US. The illegal shit has got to stop. I agree with that.

Trump has to be careful how that is done, though, in order to be fair. And I don't believe Trump can change that himself; it is written in law and needs to be changed by Congress, doesn't it?

 

[dblack]

I'm in! It may take a constitutional amendment to to do.

Yeah. I've got nothing but contempt for Trump's fear mongering, but the birthright citizenship thing never made much sense to me. I could get behind an amendment to change it.