Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[DarkFury]

[

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

.

Simply untrue. There are plenty of dual citizens. I know some personally.

But they are DUAL by birth NOT immigration.

 

[mudwhistle]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

Nope.


There seems to be a question on whether or not someone who defrauded the government during their naturalization process cancelled out their rights under this amendment.

The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to the children of slaves.......not criminal illegals.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

Good luck taking that to court, which has already been done, several times now under different conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

"United States v. Wong Kim Ark
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

• is born in the United States
• of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
• whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution."

 

[The Rabbi]

[

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

.

Simply untrue. There are plenty of dual citizens. I know some personally.

But they are DUAL by birth NOT immigration.

Wrong again.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Funny, amending the constitution is at the very heart of being constitutional.

The day we added this amendment is the day it became constitutional.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

.

Simply untrue. There are plenty of dual citizens. I know some personally.

But they are DUAL by birth NOT immigration.

Wrong again.

Ugh.

"A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality."
http://travel.state.gov/content/tra...ip-and-dual-nationality/dual-nationality.html

 

[DarkFury]

[

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

.

Simply untrue. There are plenty of dual citizens. I know some personally.

But they are DUAL by birth NOT immigration.

Wrong again.

"As far as the U.S. is concerned most foreign aliens who become Americans can keep their original citizenship, however their country of origin may not allow double citizenship and they may have to give up their original citizenship. Therefore is very important to check with your country of birth if you can keep your citizenship when becoming American. It is important for U.S. green card holders to consider the pros and cons about dual citizenship carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship."
http://immigration.terra.com/citizenship_dual.html

"The US federal government does not encourage dual nationality or allegiance, but it is becoming so common that it has to be tolerated at least. The State Department can revoke US citizenship for anyone running for office or voting in another country, but very rarely does. In fact, a number of decisions appear to lend tacit support to dual nationality: lifting the ban on Americans with dual Lebanese citizenship travelling to Lebanon; allowing draft dodgers to return from Canada and resume citizenship. In 1996 over a million people naturalized as US citizens: 217,418 Mexicans; 62,168 Cubans; 47,625 Vietnamese; 45,210 Filipinos; 36,265 from the former Soviet Union; 33,240 Salvadorans; 30,656 Chinese; 28,932 Indians; 27,293 Dominicans; 26,115 Colombians."
http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/traces/feature.htm

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump is saying the bastardization of the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. Do you think the framers intended the 14th to allow the Federal government to flat out ignore immigration laws and their constitutional responsibilities? To allow foreigners to flood into our country illegally, pop out a kid and plant a flag here by saying well my kid is an American citizen so I'm staying? Do you think that framers even contemplated a USA where the Federal government intentionally failed to secure the borders?

Yes yes you got yourselves a 'gotcha' quote by Trump but if you don't think there is a SCOTUS argument in this pile of corruption you are mistaken.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

all we need is a new, improved footnote....

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

It has already been "tested out". In 1898, the Supremes ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that even though his parents were citizens of China, by being born in San Francisco in 1871 conveyed birthright citizenship upon him under Clause 1 of Amendment XIV. That decision cemented the interpretation of birthright citizenship of those born in the Nation to non-citizens and that birthright is inalienable.

One can read the Syllabus, Opinion of the Court and Dissent here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS

 

[ScreamingEagle]

even Indians did not have a right to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment....

"In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book."

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

 

[g5000]

The words "the 14th amendment is unconstitutional" never came out of Trump's mouth.

The headline of this topic, and the headline of the OP link are lies.

 

[g5000]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

Exactly. Thank God at least someone besides me is paying attention.

 

[Jackson]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried. This is a "gutcheck" post. If you try to defend Trump's statement it is proof positive you are a complete moron and abject ignoramus. I dont care what your political leanings.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-says-14th-amendment-is-127077752761.html

Jackson

 

[The Rabbi]

[

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

.

Simply untrue. There are plenty of dual citizens. I know some personally.

But they are DUAL by birth NOT immigration.

Wrong again.

"As far as the U.S. is concerned most foreign aliens who become Americans can keep their original citizenship, however their country of origin may not allow double citizenship and they may have to give up their original citizenship. Therefore is very important to check with your country of birth if you can keep your citizenship when becoming American. It is important for U.S. green card holders to consider the pros and cons about dual citizenship carefully before applying for U.S. citizenship."
http://immigration.terra.com/citizenship_dual.html

"The US federal government does not encourage dual nationality or allegiance, but it is becoming so common that it has to be tolerated at least. The State Department can revoke US citizenship for anyone running for office or voting in another country, but very rarely does. In fact, a number of decisions appear to lend tacit support to dual nationality: lifting the ban on Americans with dual Lebanese citizenship travelling to Lebanon; allowing draft dodgers to return from Canada and resume citizenship. In 1996 over a million people naturalized as US citizens: 217,418 Mexicans; 62,168 Cubans; 47,625 Vietnamese; 45,210 Filipinos; 36,265 from the former Soviet Union; 33,240 Salvadorans; 30,656 Chinese; 28,932 Indians; 27,293 Dominicans; 26,115 Colombians."
http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/traces/feature.htm

Thanks for confirming I was correct. I'll remember that.

 

[The Rabbi]

The words "the 14th amendment is unconstitutional" never came out of Trump's mouth.

The headline of this topic, and the headline of the OP link are lies.

Only to the literal minded snits on this board. Like you.

 

[Jackson]

Yeah I couldnt make this up if I tried. This is a "gutcheck" post. If you try to defend Trump's statement it is proof positive you are a complete moron and abject ignoramus. I dont care what your political leanings.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-trump-says-14th-amendment-is-127077752761.html

Jackson Care to comment on what your latest idol said?

For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship.[60] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967),[61] as well as Vance v. Terrazas (1980),[62] holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship. However, Congress can revoke citizenship that it had previously granted to a person not born in the United States.[63]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourt...#Children_born_to_citizens_of_other_countries

 

[Jackson]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

Huh?????????????

It's Yahoo news and people don't listen (surprise). He never said that. He said that lawyers are saying the issue with anchor babies will not hold up in court and it will be tested out.

Exactly. Thank God at least someone besides me is paying attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourt...#Children_born_to_citizens_of_other_countries
For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship.[60] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967),[61] as well as Vance v. Terrazas (1980),[62] holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship. However, Congress can revoke citizenship that it had previously granted to a person not born in the United States.[63]

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

even Indians did not have a right to U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment....

"In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book."

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

Regarding Native Americans and Alaskan native peoples, they have dual citizenship and are entitled to vote in local, State and National elections as well as their tribal elections* and are now considered US citizens with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

"Are American Indians and Alaska Natives citizens?
American Indians and Alaska Natives are citizens of the United States and of the states in which they reside. They are also citizens of the Tribes according to the criteria established by each Tribe." [Emphasis Added]
* (see http://www.justice.gov/otj/about-native-americans#otj21)

 

[mudwhistle]

Funny, amending the constitution is at the very heart of being constitutional.

The day we added this amendment is the day it became constitutional.

The constitutionality isn't the issue.

How it has been used and abused is.