Born in the U.S. = American citizen, but not if Trump has his way

[Tom Horn]

The Constitution isn't a suicide-pact. The beaners have taken advantage of a country that's bent over backwards to be fair to the rest of the world and don't give a shit what it's cost us. The Feds owe us in Arizona almost a BILLION DOLLARS for warehousing their illegals while we get robbed, shot, and sent to the unemployment office because they'll work for peanuts. A guy like Trump appears every 30 years or so to grab the steering wheel before we go over the edge. Give the anchor babies the boot right along with their parents. If they want to come back, get in line like the rest of the world does.

 

[easyt65]

IMHO, which makes no more difference than anyone else's:

I don't think that any child born in the US to parents who came here illegally should 'AUTOMATICALLY' be named / made US citizens. Babies become 'tools' - leverage - to use for the argument for the parents to be able to stay.

It's like a criminal breaking into your house, delivering a baby, then declaring the baby is now part of your family and the house is just as much the baby's (and thus theirs) as it is yours. Ummm, NO!

What do you call the baby of illegal immigrants who 'broke into our house'? The baby of illegal immigrants who broke into 'our house.

If you go to Japan and are even there legally, last time I was there and my daughter was born we weren't given the option of her having Japanese citizenship.

If 'you' want to be COMPLETELY honest about the whole illegal immigration issue one must recognize that to Liberals illegal immigrants are nothing more than 'tools' - VOTES - because they know once here they have nothing and will become completely dependent on all the AMERCIAN TAX PAYER-FUNDED 'freebies' the Libs will dish out, growing the size of the 'economic slavery' 'plantation'.

Never mind that the social programs that already exist are over-burdening this country's economy and future, straining it more and more towards collapse. Politicians are determined to milk it as long as they can.

The existing social programs are also NOT designed to get anyone OFF these programs. Dependency on these programs and on those who will keep handing out the 'freebies' is critical to continuing to secure the votes.

So, as the circle completes itself in this discussion, who else are those who support illegal immigration going to vote for - the guy who opposes illegal immigration or the person who wants to not only want to bring in illegals but 'refugees' as well?!

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

Red:
Like so much of what Trump attempts to put forth as policy, there's no telling; he's not been very clear about what he thinks should be done. What's clear is that enough of what he's had to say about birthright citizenship isn't accurate.

• Trump Challenges Birthright Citizenship & Donald Trump says Mexico doesn't have birthright citizenship
• Trump on Birthright Citizenship
  
• Donald Trump and other GOP candidates want to radically change a 150-year-old cornerstone of American citizenship
  
• Understanding Trump’s plan to end citizenship for undocumented immigrants’ kids
  • What does Trump mean by ending birthright citizenship?
    Since an 1898 ruling by the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment has guaranteed citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even if the parents are here illegally.
    
    It isn't clear what Trump means by ending birthright citizenship. The plan only cites a poll that found that a majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship, without providing any details. (Other polls have found that more Americans support the law as it exists than favor changing it.)
    
    About 350,000 children were born in the United States in 2009 who had at least one parent who was an undocumented immigrant, according tothe Pew Research Center. They accounted for about 8 percent of all babies born here that year. Yet many of them likely had one parent who was either a citizen or an immigrant living here legally. Trump's plan does not specify exactly which babies would be denied citizenship.
    
    In 2010, according to Pew, there were a total of 4.5 million people who had been born in the United States to parents who were undocumented immigrants. Trump's plan does not specify whether their citizenship will be revoked.
    
    Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for clarification, but Wonkblog will add more information to this post if and when the campaign makes it available.
    
    Trump's plan also does not describe how he would end birthright citizenship. He would likely have to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn the longstanding precedent. Trump could also propose an amendment to the Constitution.
    
    The nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has projected that by 2050, ending birthright citizenship for future children would increase the undocumented population to 16 million if citizenship were denied to children whose parents are both here illegally. The figure would increase to 25 million if citizenship were denied to the offspring of at least one unauthorized immigrant. With no change in law, the unauthorized population would remain steady at around 11 million.
• On Citizenship, the ‘Birthers’ Are Right

That it's impossible to tell just what that man means is a bigger problem than is the idea of ending birthright citizenship.

 

[OldLady]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

Why was the mother in prison here? If she was here illegally, there wasn't but one thing that should have been done and that's ship her ass back wherever she came from.

The problem with the anchor babies is you lefties ignore that those born here were born here due solely to a criminal act.

I don't believe I'm ignoring that. Try reading my posts.

 

[owebo]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

Red:
Like so much of what Trump attempts to put forth as policy, there's no telling; he's not been very clear about what he thinks should be done. What's clear is that enough of what he's had to say about birthright citizenship isn't accurate.

• Trump Challenges Birthright Citizenship & Donald Trump says Mexico doesn't have birthright citizenship
• Trump on Birthright Citizenship
  
• Donald Trump and other GOP candidates want to radically change a 150-year-old cornerstone of American citizenship
  
• Understanding Trump’s plan to end citizenship for undocumented immigrants’ kids
  • What does Trump mean by ending birthright citizenship?
    Since an 1898 ruling by the Supreme Court, the 14th Amendment has guaranteed citizenship to anyone born in the United States, even if the parents are here illegally.
    
    It isn't clear what Trump means by ending birthright citizenship. The plan only cites a poll that found that a majority of Americans oppose birthright citizenship, without providing any details. (Other polls have found that more Americans support the law as it exists than favor changing it.)
    
    About 350,000 children were born in the United States in 2009 who had at least one parent who was an undocumented immigrant, according tothe Pew Research Center. They accounted for about 8 percent of all babies born here that year. Yet many of them likely had one parent who was either a citizen or an immigrant living here legally. Trump's plan does not specify exactly which babies would be denied citizenship.
    
    In 2010, according to Pew, there were a total of 4.5 million people who had been born in the United States to parents who were undocumented immigrants. Trump's plan does not specify whether their citizenship will be revoked.
    
    Trump's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for clarification, but Wonkblog will add more information to this post if and when the campaign makes it available.
    
    Trump's plan also does not describe how he would end birthright citizenship. He would likely have to persuade the Supreme Court to overturn the longstanding precedent. Trump could also propose an amendment to the Constitution.
    
    The nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute has projected that by 2050, ending birthright citizenship for future children would increase the undocumented population to 16 million if citizenship were denied to children whose parents are both here illegally. The figure would increase to 25 million if citizenship were denied to the offspring of at least one unauthorized immigrant. With no change in law, the unauthorized population would remain steady at around 11 million.
• On Citizenship, the ‘Birthers’ Are Right

That it's impossible to tell just what that man means is a bigger problem than is the idea of ending birthright citizenship.

Define 'put' if you would please...

You are not a very bright individual, so it's difficult to understand your thinking with your education handicap....

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

What we don't want are illegal invaders wading across the Rio Grande (or any border) and dropping a kid simply to get access to taxpayers' pocket change. Children born to those of legal status are in no danger of losing citizenship.

I'm glad you "know" that to be so, for Trump has not been nearly so clear. Like so much, he's said one thing, twisted it around, taken it back, called it what it isn't and so on.

Maybe we should nominate you instead of Trump. You state clearly what you want to see done. At least I know whether I agree with your proposal or don't agree with it.

 

[Conservative65]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

Why was the mother in prison here? If she was here illegally, there wasn't but one thing that should have been done and that's ship her ass back wherever she came from.

The problem with the anchor babies is you lefties ignore that those born here were born here due solely to a criminal act.

I don't believe I'm ignoring that. Try reading my posts.

You do nothing about it. Words mean nothing unless actions to stop it take place.

 

[OldLady]

IMHO, which makes no more difference than anyone else's:

I don't think that any child born in the US to parents who came here illegally should 'AUTOMATICALLY' be named / made US citizens. Babies become 'tools' - leverage - to use for the argument for the parents to be able to stay.

It's like a criminal breaking into your house, delivering a baby, then declaring the baby is now part of your family and the house is just as much the baby's (and thus theirs) as it is yours. Ummm, NO!

What do you call the baby of illegal immigrants who 'broke into our house'? The baby of illegal immigrants who broke into 'our house.

If you go to Japan and are even there legally, last time I was there and my daughter was born we weren't given the option of her having Japanese citizenship.

If 'you' want to be COMPLETELY honest about the whole illegal immigration issue one must recognize that to Liberals illegal immigrants are nothing more than 'tools' - VOTES - because they know once here they have nothing and will become completely dependent on all the AMERCIAN TAX PAYER-FUNDED 'freebies' the Libs will dish out, growing the size of the 'economic slavery' 'plantation'.

Never mind that the social programs that already exist are over-burdening this country's economy and future, straining it more and more towards collapse. Politicians are determined to milk it as long as they can.

The existing social programs are also NOT designed to get anyone OFF these programs. Dependency on these programs and on those who will keep handing out the 'freebies' is critical to continuing to secure the votes.

So, as the circle completes itself in this discussion, who else are those who support illegal immigration going to vote for - the guy who opposes illegal immigration or the person who wants to not only want to bring in illegals but 'refugees' as well?!

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN'T VOTE. Why do people keep using this argument? It's stupid.

 

[TooTall]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

What happened to dual citizenship? How long is the prison sentence for illegally entering the US?
I certainly hope these problem areas will be addressed, but lawmakers often pass laws and then find the unintended consequences.

Dual citizenship is no longer allowed, not even for Canadians. I don't know the specifics of that mom I referenced, but she was in for a year. It would have been cheaper to send her back home sans the jail time, imo.

Not true.
"The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) neither defines dual citizenship nor takes a position for it or against it. There has been no prohibition against dual citizenship, but some provisions of the INA and earlier U.S. nationality laws were designed to reduce situations in which dual citizenship exists. Although naturalizing citizens are required to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances, the oath has never been enforced to require the actual termination of original citizenship."

I seriously doubt that anyone is put in prison for a year for illegally entering the US. She must have been guilty of a few more crimes as well.

 

[320 Years of History]

Where does it say that Trump wants to deport U.S. citizens?

Someone (I have no idea who) I'm ignoring is clearly saying absurd/inaccurate stuff to you too. I'm glad it's not just me to whom s/he says stupid sh*t. LOL

 

[Tom Horn]

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN'T VOTE. Why do people keep using this argument? It's stupid.

You got to be kidding....do you know why voter ID is a big issue here in the southwest? They go from polling place to polling place until somebody gives them a ballot. I've seen it time and time again.

 

[Rozman]

Trump wants his US citizens to be white and purebred as he is....

 

[owebo]

Trump wants his US citizens to be white and purebred as he is....

The democrat kkk disagrees with you.....

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

• "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."

No amendment is necessary. A simple ruling on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will make or break it.

That ruling has already been made and established by the Supremes 118 years ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Wong was not a subject of the Emperor of China, but subject to the laws of the US and the State in which he resided, California having been born in San Francisco.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

 

[easyt65]

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN'T VOTE. Why do people keep using this argument? It's stupid.

Illegal immigrants most certainly CAN vote. The question is 'Do they?'

Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review

Guy Benson - Fraud: Local NBC Investigation Discovers Dozens of Illegal Voters in Florida

Democrats Benefit From Illegal Immigrant Voting

(PLEASE learn from this and stop saying Illegals voting in our elections is a myth. You are WRONG.)


Americans aren't supposed to vote more than once for a candidate in the same election, but it happens / has happened:


- This woman bragged about how she voted 5 times for Obama in 2012 yet claims she is not guilty of voter fraud. REALLY?!

...the judge / courts decided differently:
Ohioan gets 5-year prison term for illegal voting

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

Does Trump only want people born to a US citizen to be US citizens? What about legal immigrants who have been here for years but have not become US citizens--their kids are all born here and live here their whole lives--they are not US citizens? Quite a few immigrants do not go through the process of naturalization--it is costly, complicated and you have to revoke your citizenship in your native country. But they live here legally and raise their families here.
Also, you have to live here five years to apply for naturalization (unless you marry a US citizen, in which case this problem wouldn't apply anyway). What if you have a baby during that time? That child will have to go through the process of obtaining citizenship when (s)he becomes 18?
Trump may not like "anchor babies" but he's going to do a lot of damage to innocent bystanders who are here legally with this rule.
Couldn't he just propose that if the parents are here illegally, their minor children must accompany them back to their home country when deported, or have legal guardianship transferred to a US citizen in order to stay? I worked a case once where the mother was in prison for illegally entering the country, and the kids had to be in DHHS custody until she got out. That is NOT an expense we want to pay.

What we don't want are illegal invaders wading across the Rio Grande (or any border) and dropping a kid simply to get access to taxpayers' pocket change. Children born to those of legal status are in no danger of losing citizenship.

I'm glad you "know" that to be so, for Trump has not been nearly so clear. Like so much, he's said one thing, twisted it around, taken it back, called it what it isn't and so on.

Maybe we should nominate you instead of Trump. You state clearly what you want to see done. At least I know whether I agree with your proposal or don't agree with it.

Not a chance.

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of any party for a term as President."
- paraphrasing Lyndon

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

• "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."

No amendment is necessary. A simple ruling on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will make or break it.

That ruling has already been made and established by the Supremes 118 years ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898. Wong was not a subject of the Emperor of China, but subject to the laws of the US and the State in which he resided, California having been born in San Francisco.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

There are differing opinions, and there is no such thing as "settled law".

 

[Unkotare]

This anchor baby crap.....

You're talking about your fellow US citizens.

 

[Unkotare]

....A simple ruling on the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will make or break it.

The Supreme Court already did that.

 

[Unkotare]

The rules of who is a citizen has to be clarified. .....

It is quite clear right now.