Trump and "Anchor Babies"

[DGS49]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

/----/ Libtards will fight this tooth and nail. Expect that a libtard Judge is already writing his opinion to overturn - then it will go to the USSC.

 

[Rambunctious]

The parents must be legal citizens........Period....if not its just a loophole and should not be allowed....

 

[Rambunctious]

More than one hospital on or very near the border have stopped delivering babies....due to non paying illegal immigrants trying to scam the system...

 

[Skylar]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

The Courts have consistently found that the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to to the jurisdiction of our laws. If an illegal weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could'nt be prosecuted for any crime they commit here.

Yet they obviously can.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Simpletons For False States "

* Pretending Validity For A Habitual Lie *

The Courts have consistently found that the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to to the jurisdiction of our laws. If an illegal weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could'nt be prosecuted for any crime they commit here.
Yet they obviously can.

You have been corrected once already and you still spout that stupidity as if it represents some level of validity or intelligence .

The illegals did not subject themselves to us jurisdiction , rather they thwarted it by arriving illegally , and their offspring are likewise not entitled to equal endowment , just as they are not entitled to equal endowment .

As illegal migrants travel abroad , it is their country of origin to which they are subjects , and should any violation of their civil wrights occur , it is their country of origin which is responsible for issuing a reprise , that might mean submitting a petition to the foreign country for prosecution or extradition of a perpetrator , which the foreign country could very well decline .

Before the formation of a social civil contract , all are subject to natural freedoms , to the moral relativism of nature ; however , to improve ones quality of life and odds of survival , one surrenders their natural freedoms for membership in a social civil contract of a constitution , while all others are subject to natural freedoms , except that those others be granted privileges by legal process to be subjects of the jurisdiction .

Thus , to state that as an illegal immigrant could not be prosecuted for a crime if they were not subjects of the jurisdiction is emphatically false , as the illegal migrant remains subject to natural freedoms with respect to the foreign government that may do with them as it decides and is able .

Further more , any supposition that protection and endowment are equivalent is absolutely false , as illegals are not entitled to social welfare and neither are their children entitled to citizenship .

Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother

 

[Skylar]

" Simpletons For False States "

* Pretending Validity For A Habitual Lie *

The Courts have consistently found that the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to to the jurisdiction of our laws. If an illegal weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could'nt be prosecuted for any crime they commit here.
Yet they obviously can.

You have been corrected once already and you still spout that stupidity as if it represents some level of validity or intelligence .

The illegals did not subject themselves to us jurisdiction , rather they thwarted it by arriving illegally , and their offspring are likewise not entitled to equal endowment , just as they are not entitled to equal endowment .

As illegal migrants travel abroad , it is their country of origin to which they are subjects , and should any violation of their civil wrights occur , it is their country of origin which is responsible for issuing a reprise , that might mean submitting a petition to the foreign country for prosecution or extradition of a perpetrator , which the foreign country could very well decline .

Before the formation of a social civil contract , all are subject to natural freedoms , to the moral relativism of nature ; however , to improve ones quality of life and odds of survival , one surrenders their natural freedoms for membership in a social civil contract of a constitution , while all others are subject to natural freedoms , except that those others be granted privileges by legal process to be subjects of the jurisdiction .

Thus , to state that as an illegal immigrant could not be prosecuted for a crime if they were not subjects of the jurisdiction is emphatically false , as the illegal migrant remains subject to natural freedoms with respect to the foreign government that may do with them as it decides and is able .

Further more , any supposition that protection and endowment are equivalent is absolutely false , as illegals are not entitled to social welfare and neither are their children entitled to citizenship .

Legislative Proposal : Children Born Of Illegal Immigrants To Receive Citizenship Of Mother

Wow. You're insults from the opening.

You're clearly confused. As you've given us your personal opinion of what 'subject to the jursidiction thereof. And you're nobody. The courts, granted the authority to interpret the constitution, have consistently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.

And illegals are subject to the laws of the United States.

You disagree. So what? You're nobody. The body granted the authority to interpret the constitution contradicts you. Rendering your personal opinion meaningless to any intelligence discussion on the matter.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Non Compliance With Legal Migrant Status Is Not Subjecting To Jurisdiction "

* Damned Straight Address Of A Habitual Lie *

Wow. You're insults from the opening.
You're clearly confused. As you've given us your personal opinion of what 'subject to the jursidiction thereof. And you're nobody. The courts, granted the authority to interpret the constitution, have consistently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.
And illegals are subject to the laws of the United States.
You disagree. So what? You're nobody. The body granted the authority to interpret the constitution contradicts you. Rendering your personal opinion meaningless to any intelligence discussion on the matter.

There are none confused about the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , which is there for a reason .

The nearest the courts have come to any ruling on the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , as it applies to granting or denying citizenship , was in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia , where the court justifiably concluded that the parents were in the us in legal standing of a work visa ( subjected themselves to the legal process to sojourn ) and therefore their son born in the us was entitled to citizenship .

Alternatively , illegal migrants did not subject themselves to the jurisdiction thereof , because they thwarted the legal process and did not acquire legal authorization to sojourn , therefore they are not entitled to all protections and definitely not entitled to an equal endowment for citizenship and that also applies to their offspring .

 

[Skylar]

" Non Compliance With Legal Migrant Status Is Not Subjecting To Jurisdiction "

* Damned Straight Address Of A Habitual Lie *

Wow. You're insults from the opening.
You're clearly confused. As you've given us your personal opinion of what 'subject to the jursidiction thereof. And you're nobody. The courts, granted the authority to interpret the constitution, have consistently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.
And illegals are subject to the laws of the United States.
You disagree. So what? You're nobody. The body granted the authority to interpret the constitution contradicts you. Rendering your personal opinion meaningless to any intelligence discussion on the matter.

There are none confused about the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , which is there for a reason .

The nearest the courts have come to any ruling on the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " , as it applies to granting or denying citizenship , was in United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia , where the court justifiably concluded that the parents were in the us in legal standing of a work visa ( subjected themselves to the legal process to sojourn ) and therefore their son born in the us was entitled to citizenship .

Of course they did they found Wong was a US citizen. Wong was born in the US. This citizenship was granted based on WHERE he was born. Not to he was born to.

Your obtuse fallacy of logic is assuming that because his parents were legal resident that the Wong court found that ONLY the children of legal residents would be similarly accorded citizenship. Wong doesn't find that all. In fact, when reviewing the legal foundation of nationality at birth the Wong Court found this:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

US V. Wong Kim Ark (1899)

With only ambassadors and the children of occupying armies being exempt. And the children of aliens being afforded birthright citizenship.

Alternatively , illegal migrants did not subject themselves to the jurisdiction thereof , because they thwarted the legal process and did not acquire legal authorization to sojourn , therefore they are not entitled to all protections and definitely not entitled to an equal endowment for citizenship and that also applies to their offspring .

More meaningless gibberish opinion. Again, what you believe the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' has no relevance to this discussion, as you're nobody. You are granted no authority under the constitution to interpret the constitution.

The courts are. And they've consisently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.

Which illegal immigrants most certianly are. The deportation of illegal immigrants under US law demosntrates that they are subject to the jurisdiction of US laws. Else we wouldn't be able to so much as give them a parking ticket. Let alone deport them.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Undermining Integrity Of The Country "

* Thwarting Accountability *

Of course they did they found Wong was a US citizen. Wong was born in the US. This citizenship was granted based on WHERE he was born. Not to he was born to.

The parents of wong satisfied the criteria of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " by having complied with the legal process for immigration , as they were legally domiciled and resident at the time .

The courts are. And they've consisently found that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means subject to the laws of the United States.
Which illegal immigrants most certianly are. The deportation of illegal immigrants under US law demosntrates that they are subject to the jurisdiction of US laws. Else we wouldn't be able to so much as give them a parking ticket. Let alone deport them.

The clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " necessitates compliance with a legal process for migration and illegal migrants are not subjects of a legal document granting migration and are not compliant with the technical elements of the 14th amendment .

11 million illegal migrants represents hostility towards the united states people and a rejection of subjugation to the legal migration process .

 

[Skylar]

" Undermining Integrity Of The Country "

* Thwarting Accountability *

Of course they did they found Wong was a US citizen. Wong was born in the US. This citizenship was granted based on WHERE he was born. Not to he was born to.

The parents of wong satisfied the criteria of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " by having complied with the legal process for immigration , as they were legally domiciled and resident at the time .

Your assumption is that because Wong was recognized as having citizenship with legal resident parents, that ONLY the children of legal resident parents would be citizens.

The Wong Court does not find this. Again, read the legal foundations they cited on nationality at birth rather than ignoring it and omitting any mention of it from your reply as you just did:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

US V. Wong Kim Ark (1899)


Children born to such aliens were subjects at birth. It excluded the children of ambassadors or hostile occupying armies.

Ignoring Wong isn't going to help your argument. Nor is doubling down on the same tired fallacy of logic.

Try again. This time reading for comprehension.

The clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " necessitates compliance with a legal process for migration and illegal migrants are not subjects of a legal document granting migration and are not compliant with the technical elements of the 14th amendment .

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. Your personal opinion has no relevance to this dicussion. Please remember that.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Theft Of Privilege By Proxy "

* When A President Grows A Pair *

Your assumption is that because Wong was recognized as having citizenship with legal resident parents, that ONLY the children of legal resident parents would be citizens.

Correct , that is what " subject to the jurisdiction " expects , that the parents be subjects of legal standing in the us .

Your citation reads " predicable of aliens in amity " and that is a contentious issue , as any illegal seeking to confiscate social subsistence through their offspring is a hostile agent .

Protection of individuals from harm is a far cry from granting them an equal endowment of social welfare , of which the parents are not entitled , and from granting them or their offspring an equal endowment of citizenship .

* Not Just Me And Apparently We Must All Be Believed To Behave Stupidly By Your Rules *

Says you, citing you. And you're nobody. Your personal opinion has no relevance to this dicussion. Please remember that.

Anchor baby - Wikipedia
As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of undocumented immigrantsmust surely be excluded.[31]

 

[Skylar]

" Theft Of Privilege By Proxy "

* When A President Grows A Pair *

Your assumption is that because Wong was recognized as having citizenship with legal resident parents, that ONLY the children of legal resident parents would be citizens.

Correct , that is what " subject to the jurisdiction " expects , that the parents be subjects of legal standing in the us .

No, that's what you imagine it means. You keep equating your personal interpretations and opinoins with the explicit findings of the court. And they are not the same thing. The Wong court *never* finds that ONLY the children of legal resident parents would be citizens.

Your assumptions are exclusionary when the findings of the courts are not. They merely affirmed that the children of legal immigrants would be citizens. You're again engaging in obtuse logical fallacies, the 'Affirming a disjunct' fallacy, to be specific. Assuming that if being born in the US of legal residents CAN make you a citizen, that it is the ONLY way you can be a citizen.

Your conclusions simply isn't supported by the Wong Ruling, as none of your imaginary exclusions are ever made. You added those exclusions, citing yourself. And you're nobody.

Your citation reads " predicable of aliens in amity " and that is a contentious issue , as any illegal seeking to confiscate social subsistence through their offspring is a hostile agent .

Again, more personal opinion fallaciously offered as caselaw. The Wong ruling NEVER finds that an illegal immigrant is a 'hostile agent'. Nor has any court. Nor does any of our laws.

You've literally made that up.

Nor is 'in amity' a particularly contentious term, as in the very same passage the Wong Court go on to describe the kind of aliens that *aren't* covered under birthright citizenship:

"But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

Wong Kim Arc (1898)

Illegal immigrants aren't a 'hostile occupation' of this land. Nor are they 'alien enemies'. Or 'hostile agents'. Nor has any court every found them to be. Nor are they classified as such by any of our laws.

Just obliterating your entire argument.

 

[Monk-Eye]

* In Due Time *

Again, more personal opinion fallaciously offered as caselaw. The Wong ruling NEVER finds that an illegal immigrant is a 'hostile agent'. Nor has any court. Nor does any of our laws.

The only thing fallacious is that there has not been a court challenge about it .

Issue is that the practice of awarding us citizenship to children of illegal migrants violates the civil liberties of citizens ; and , a class action lawsuit should be brought forward against government for its malfeasance .

* King Not Confronted With Social Welfare Demans *

Illegal immigrants aren't a 'hostile occupation' of this land. Nor are they 'alien enemies'. Or 'hostile agents'. Nor has any court every found them to be. Nor are they classified as such by any of our laws.
Just obliterating your entire argument.

The contention about the clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " has not been obliterated , and it remains a valid premise that would require children born to unauthorized migrants ( those who do not subject themselves to us jurisdiction for approval as migrants ) be provided citizenship from the country of origin for that of the mother .

That migrants are creating anchor babies with the purpose of robbing the us public for social subsistence and that qualifies as an act of hostility .

 

[danielpalos]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

natural rights for the natural born mean nothing to the right wing?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Apply Language Purpose "

* Reduce Legal Immigration To Countries Of Origin In Proportion To Number Of Illegals And Number Of Anchor Babies "

natural rights for the natural born mean nothing to the right wing?

A pretense for " natural rites " is absurd , as the " nature of mammon " is the same as any other animal .

The 14th amendment is the lynch pin for roe v wade , as an individual receives equal protection at birth ; and , if left wing fools keep debasing the validity of the clause , " subject to the jurisdiction " in the 14th amendment , such that a constitutional amendment comes to pass to remove citizenship by birth , then do not forget that they were warned .

To reach the shores of england was not an easy task and the king was not challenged with a flood of peoples clamoring for its wealth , and accessibility is why other european countries do not have a citizenship by birth statute , whereby both parallels between conditions for england and the us fail .

 

[danielpalos]

" Apply Language Purpose "

* Reduce Legal Immigration To Countries Of Origin In Proportion To Number Of Illegals And Number Of Anchor Babies "

natural rights for the natural born mean nothing to the right wing?

A pretense for " natural rites " is absurd , as the " nature of mammon " is the same as any other animal .

The 14th amendment is the lynch pin for roe v wade , as an individual receives equal protection at birth ; and , if left wing fools keep debasing the validity of the clause , " subject to the jurisdiction " in the 14th amendment , such that a constitutional amendment comes to pass to remove citizenship by birth , then do not forget that they were warned .

To reach the shores of england was not an easy task and the king was not challenged with a flood of peoples clamoring for its wealth , and accessibility is why other european countries do not have a citizenship by birth statute , whereby both parallels between conditions for england and the us fail .

equal protection of the law applies with any use of our law.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Nuances Of Subject To Jurisdiction Versus Within Boundaries Of Jurisdiction "

* Conceptually Insufficient Legal Terms *

equal protection of the law applies with any use of our law.

Agreements in a social civil contract do not follow directly from a pretense for " natural rites " .

A notion of equal protection is not congruent with a notion of equal endowment .

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future.
They just want more money and power.

 

[danielpalos]

" Nuances Of Subject To Jurisdiction Versus Within Boundaries Of Jurisdiction "

* Conceptually Insufficient Legal Terms *

equal protection of the law applies with any use of our law.

Agreements in a social civil contract do not follow directly from a pretense for " natural rites " .

A notion of equal protection is not congruent with a notion of equal endowment .

dude; Any use of Our law requires it be Constitutional, not merely politically expedient.