Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[Little-Acorn]

If you try to defend Trump's statement it is proof positive you are a complete moron and abject ignoramus.

It all depends on how the court defines a word. And that word is

Are you actually defending Trump's statement?

You appear upset over DF's ignoring your attempt to use namecalling to bully him out of replying. Too bad. It's called "debate". Maybe you should take your tactics back to the 3rd grade playground where they belong (or do they?).

Back to the subject:
O'Reilly misquoted the 14th amendment, leaving out a significant part of it relevant to this issue. And the author of the article missed it completely, and you piled right on. You need to read it before pretending you know what you're talking about.

I bolded the part they left out, so you wouldn't be able to claim ignorance again:

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.

Illegal aliens' kids born on this side of the border, aren't subject to the United States' jurisdiction, since their parents are here illegally. So they are not U.S. citizens, according to the Constitution.

If the Swedish ambassador and his wife go to a hospital in Washington and have a baby, that baby IS a U.S. citizen (and might be a dual citizen, US and Sweden), since their parents were here legally. Ditto for the ambassador from Kenya or England or Mexico or Russia.

Trump didn't say the 14th amendment is unconstitutional. He never mentioned the 14th amendment at all. He said O'Reilly's interpretation of it was unconstitutional. In fact, Trump is right: O'Reilly's interpretation doesn't agree with what the Constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) actually says.

And hysterical screamers such as the article author and yourself, are wrong. Again.

When can we expect you to correct the lie you put in the title of this thread?

 

[Jackson]

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.

Yes, it was initially written for freed slaves becoming citizens.

 

[Jackson]

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.

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]

 

[Syriusly]

It all depends on how the court defines a word. And that word is
ju·ris·dic·tion
ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
     "federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
     synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway,leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
     "an area under French jurisdiction"
     • the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
       "the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"
     • a system of law courts; a judicature.
       plural noun: jurisdictions
       "in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"
   • So now is it the land you are standing on OR the country you are sworn to?

If a French citizen robs a bank in Dallas, and is caught outside the bank- is he subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Yes but IF that same robber robs a bank in Mexico as a Mexican citizen then flees to Dallas Mexico has FULL RIGHT to recall him

Mexico can request the extradition of their citizen- but since he is within the jurisdiction of the United States, whether or not the United States decided to comply with their REQUEST would rely upon on whatever extradition treaty conditions exist between the United States and Mexico.

An American who robs a bank in Mexico is subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico.
A Frenchman who robs a bank in Dallas is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty easy to figure out when you look at who is subject to the laws.

 

[Syriusly]

It all depends on how the court defines a word. And that word is
ju·ris·dic·tion
ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
     "federal courts had no jurisdiction over the case"
     synonyms: authority, control, power, dominion, rule, administration, command, sway,leadership, sovereignty, hegemony
     "an area under French jurisdiction"
     • the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments.
       "the claim will be within the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunal"
     • a system of law courts; a judicature.
       plural noun: jurisdictions
       "in some jurisdictions there is a mandatory death sentence for murder"
   • So now is it the land you are standing on OR the country you are sworn to?

If a French citizen robs a bank in Dallas, and is caught outside the bank- is he subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Yes but IF that same robber robs a bank in Mexico as a Mexican citizen then flees to Dallas Mexico has FULL RIGHT to recall him.
The hair splitting here and that is what it is IS the legal ground described as the LAND you are standing on OR the country of your origin.

Take into account here that ILLEGALS do not renounce their country something that IS needed to migrate to ANY other country.

Millions of green card holders are legal residents of the United States- and citizens of a foreign country.

Millions of Americans are dual citizens of the United States and other countries. I have one friend who is actually a citizen of three countries.

The 14th Amendment says 'subject to the jurisidiction of'- that is not hair splitting- that is the actual language.

And anyone in the United States- other than accredited diplomats(since we have no invading armies) is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you can be arrested in the United States- you are subject to our jurisdiction.

 

[Syriusly]

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? .

LOL- the people who voted on the 14th Amendment knew exactly that.

As was discussed in Wong Kim Ark- that very issue was raised in regards to Chinese Immigrants when the 14th Amendment was voted on- and it was recognized that yes- it would make citizens out of people born to Chinese citizens in the United States- even when the United States excluded Chinese from immigrating to the United States.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Did he say the Constitution is unconstitutional?

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

He made reference to 'his' lawyers, which has about as much weight as making reference to the voices in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The amendment was designed to clarify citizenship law- regarding everyone- not just the children of slaves.

 

[tinydancer]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship,

what IS he claiming?

 

[tinydancer]

"On Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show: The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane.

People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong.

The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens?

The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide."

August 18, 2015 | MARK-CM

 

[candycorn]

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.

Do you think the framers were talking about AK-47s and bazookas in the "right to bear arms"?

As for the Framers intentions....I forget, did they build a wall to keep the American Indians out?

 

[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.

Do you think the framers were talking about AK-47s and bazookas in the "right to bear arms"?

As for the Framers intentions....I forget, did they build a wall to keep the American Indians out?

You are apparently completely ignorant of the weapons available in the late 1700's many of which could not be sold today due to how dangerous they were. I find most liberals are ignorant of this. Well I find most liberals are ignorant in general but you in particular.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship, what IS he claiming?

Didn't even read the recent posts in the thread, did we?

(yawn) See Post #41

 

[candycorn]

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.
Donald Trump says 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

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]

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn. Let me ask you...did that sound as lame in your head before you cut and pasted it as it reads above.

So now,
In addition to,
12 million apprehensions
12 million immigration hearings
12 million breakfasts
12 million lunches
12 million dinners (each hearing would take a day---if they happen to get a hearing on the same day they were apprehended which has never happened)
12 million more hearings for judges,
12 million more hearings for INS attorneys to worry about
12 million bus tickets back to Reynosa
and 12 million possibilities that you may have wrongful apprehension suits, police brutality suits, identification hearings, etc....

We get to add 3-4 million acts of congress to strip away the citizenship of 5 year old children.

Ya know, about 70 days ago, if I were to suggest that we spend $12,000,000 more dollars on INS, you probably would have balked at it. I do know that last week, when Ms. Clinton proposed her $350B college plan to educate Americans, you said it was too costly. But I guess you can't put a price tag on your racism, can you?

 

[candycorn]

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.

Do you think the framers were talking about AK-47s and bazookas in the "right to bear arms"?

As for the Framers intentions....I forget, did they build a wall to keep the American Indians out?

You are apparently completely ignorant of the weapons available in the late 1700's many of which could not be sold today due to how dangerous they were. I find most liberals are ignorant of this. Well I find most liberals are ignorant in general but you in particular.

Nice dodge of the questions but I suppose when you see your party splitting apart at the seams and the "Clinton's worst nightmare" calling the constitution unconstitutional...it's probably hard to focus.

 

[candycorn]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

 

[candycorn]

70 days ago, Trump was considered a flaming liberal guys.

Are you folks really this desperate?

 

[Darkwind]

Are you progressives actually going to NOW argue that an Amendment to a Constitution makes it part of that Constitution and therefore legitimate?

Cause I want to direct your attentions to Strauss v. Horton in which ALL you mofo's defended the ruling that the Amendment was "Unconstitutional".....

 

[Syriusly]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

The article lied- Trump never says he thinks the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional.