There is no mystery concerning constitutionally authorized citizenship in the United States. Anchor babies are not U.S. Citizens.

johnwk

Platinum Member
May 24, 2009
4,531
2,307
930
By the terms of our Constitution, which became effective on June 21st, 1788, (when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it), Congress, and only Congress, was authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4). By this provision Congress, and not our Judicial Branch of government or our Executive Branch, is vested with the exclusive power to enact legislation determining how a foreign national may be bestowed the privilege of United States citizenship.

And why was this power vested in the Congress of the United States, the people's elected representatives, and not in any other branch of our government?

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, PAGE 1148.

Exercising its exclusive power to bestow the privilege of United States citizenship, Congress adopted its first uniform rules on March 26, 1790, “The Naturalization Act of 1790” (1 Stat. 103). For some of its features see ArtI.S8.C4.1.2.3 Early U.S. Naturalization Laws:

“The Act provided that any free white person who resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least two years could be granted citizenship if he or she showed good character and swore allegiance to the Constitution.1 The law also provided that the children of naturalized citizens under the age of twenty-one at the time of their parents’ naturalization and who were residing in the United States would be considered U.S. citizens.2 The children of U.S. citizens who were born outside the United States were deemed U.S. citizens unless their fathers had never resided in the United States.3 Additionally, Congress delegated to the courts the power to administer the naturalization process.4

”In 1795 Congress amended the naturalization law by requiring an applicant to submit a declaration of intent to become a citizen at least three years before naturalization, and extending the minimum residence requirement to five years.5 Then, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, among other things, lengthened the period in which to declare an intent to become a citizen to five years, lengthened the minimum residence requirement to fourteen years, and barred the naturalization of any alien from a country at war with the United States.6 In 1802, Congress repealed the previous laws and restored both the five-year residence requirement and the three-year declaration of intent period.7

”In the ensuing years, Congress continued to establish naturalization policies with varying conditions and restrictions.8 Despite these differences, naturalization laws uniformly required that an applicant prove residence in the United States for a specific time period before acquiring citizenship.9”



The Fourteenth Amendment is adopted.


The next important rule of law provision concerning citizenship in the United States is the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares in part:

Section 1:
”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.”

Section 5:

”The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”


Let us now establish some facts:

FACT:
Congress has not exercised its exclusive power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, to grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.


FACT: Congress has not exercised its Section 5 authority to adopt appropriate legislation under the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

NOTE: “Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE


FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation extending birth right citizenship to Indians by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

FACT: To date there is no appropriate legislation or statutory law adopted by Congress granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. Today, nothing more than unwritten policy recognizes them as citizens upon birth.


FACT: To date there is no Supreme Court case confirming a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

CONTENTION Since Congress, and only Congress is authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and Congress, and only Congress is vested with the exclusive power to adopt appropriate legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce its provisions, and has not acted to grant citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, it would be a flagrant and clear violation of our separation of powers doctrine for our Supreme Court to declare a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

What say you?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
 
1734978635112.png
 
By the terms of our Constitution, which became effective on June 21st, 1788, (when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it), Congress, and only Congress, was authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4). By this provision Congress, and not our Judicial Branch of government or our Executive Branch, is vested with the exclusive power to enact legislation determining how a foreign national may be bestowed the privilege of United States citizenship.

And why was this power vested in the Congress of the United States, the people's elected representatives, and not in any other branch of our government?

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, PAGE 1148.

Exercising its exclusive power to bestow the privilege of United States citizenship, Congress adopted its first uniform rules on March 26, 1790, “The Naturalization Act of 1790” (1 Stat. 103). For some of its features see ArtI.S8.C4.1.2.3 Early U.S. Naturalization Laws:

“The Act provided that any free white person who resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least two years could be granted citizenship if he or she showed good character and swore allegiance to the Constitution.1 The law also provided that the children of naturalized citizens under the age of twenty-one at the time of their parents’ naturalization and who were residing in the United States would be considered U.S. citizens.2 The children of U.S. citizens who were born outside the United States were deemed U.S. citizens unless their fathers had never resided in the United States.3 Additionally, Congress delegated to the courts the power to administer the naturalization process.4

”In 1795 Congress amended the naturalization law by requiring an applicant to submit a declaration of intent to become a citizen at least three years before naturalization, and extending the minimum residence requirement to five years.5 Then, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, among other things, lengthened the period in which to declare an intent to become a citizen to five years, lengthened the minimum residence requirement to fourteen years, and barred the naturalization of any alien from a country at war with the United States.6 In 1802, Congress repealed the previous laws and restored both the five-year residence requirement and the three-year declaration of intent period.7

”In the ensuing years, Congress continued to establish naturalization policies with varying conditions and restrictions.8 Despite these differences, naturalization laws uniformly required that an applicant prove residence in the United States for a specific time period before acquiring citizenship.9”



The Fourteenth Amendment is adopted.


The next important rule of law provision concerning citizenship in the United States is the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares in part:

Section 1:
”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.”

Section 5:

”The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”


Let us now establish some facts:

FACT:
Congress has not exercised its exclusive power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, to grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.


FACT: Congress has not exercised its Section 5 authority to adopt appropriate legislation under the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

NOTE: “Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE


FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation extending birth right citizenship to Indians by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

FACT: To date there is no appropriate legislation or statutory law adopted by Congress granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. Today, nothing more than unwritten policy recognizes them as citizens upon birth.


FACT: To date there is no Supreme Court case confirming a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

CONTENTION Since Congress, and only Congress is authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and Congress, and only Congress is vested with the exclusive power to adopt appropriate legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce its provisions, and has not acted to grant citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, it would be a flagrant and clear violation of our separation of powers doctrine for our Supreme Court to declare a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

What say you?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Wrong.
Whether or not Congress actually writes legislation, the abstract principles still have precedence.
That is why the rebellion against the British was legal, why we have the right of privacy even without any legislation, etc.

None of Founders were originally US citizens, so they had to make it easy to become citizens, like being born here. The only reason the 14th amendment because necessary if that the 1790 legislation was clearly illegally racist.
 
By the terms of our Constitution, which became effective on June 21st, 1788, (when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it), Congress, and only Congress, was authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4). By this provision Congress, and not our Judicial Branch of government or our Executive Branch, is vested with the exclusive power to enact legislation determining how a foreign national may be bestowed the privilege of United States citizenship.

And why was this power vested in the Congress of the United States, the people's elected representatives, and not in any other branch of our government?

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, PAGE 1148.

Exercising its exclusive power to bestow the privilege of United States citizenship, Congress adopted its first uniform rules on March 26, 1790, “The Naturalization Act of 1790” (1 Stat. 103). For some of its features see ArtI.S8.C4.1.2.3 Early U.S. Naturalization Laws:

“The Act provided that any free white person who resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least two years could be granted citizenship if he or she showed good character and swore allegiance to the Constitution.1 The law also provided that the children of naturalized citizens under the age of twenty-one at the time of their parents’ naturalization and who were residing in the United States would be considered U.S. citizens.2 The children of U.S. citizens who were born outside the United States were deemed U.S. citizens unless their fathers had never resided in the United States.3 Additionally, Congress delegated to the courts the power to administer the naturalization process.4

”In 1795 Congress amended the naturalization law by requiring an applicant to submit a declaration of intent to become a citizen at least three years before naturalization, and extending the minimum residence requirement to five years.5 Then, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, among other things, lengthened the period in which to declare an intent to become a citizen to five years, lengthened the minimum residence requirement to fourteen years, and barred the naturalization of any alien from a country at war with the United States.6 In 1802, Congress repealed the previous laws and restored both the five-year residence requirement and the three-year declaration of intent period.7

”In the ensuing years, Congress continued to establish naturalization policies with varying conditions and restrictions.8 Despite these differences, naturalization laws uniformly required that an applicant prove residence in the United States for a specific time period before acquiring citizenship.9”



The Fourteenth Amendment is adopted.


The next important rule of law provision concerning citizenship in the United States is the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares in part:

Section 1:
”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.”

Section 5:

”The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”


Let us now establish some facts:

FACT:
Congress has not exercised its exclusive power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, to grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.


FACT: Congress has not exercised its Section 5 authority to adopt appropriate legislation under the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

NOTE: “Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE


FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation extending birth right citizenship to Indians by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

FACT: To date there is no appropriate legislation or statutory law adopted by Congress granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. Today, nothing more than unwritten policy recognizes them as citizens upon birth.


FACT: To date there is no Supreme Court case confirming a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

CONTENTION Since Congress, and only Congress is authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and Congress, and only Congress is vested with the exclusive power to adopt appropriate legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce its provisions, and has not acted to grant citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, it would be a flagrant and clear violation of our separation of powers doctrine for our Supreme Court to declare a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

What say you?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
What was the 1980s Amnesty Act?


The Immigration Reform and Control Act was signed by President Ronald Reagan and enacted in November 1986. The act granted temporary legal status to any undocumented immigrants who had been living in the United States continuously since 1982 so long as they paid a $185 fee and could demonstrate good moral character.

Amnesty | Immigration Solutions LLC​

 
Wrong.
Whether or not Congress actually writes legislation, the abstract principles still have precedence.
That is why the rebellion against the British was legal, why we have the right of privacy even without any legislation, etc.

None of Founders were originally US citizens, so they had to make it easy to become citizens, like being born here. The only reason the 14th amendment because necessary if that the 1790 legislation was clearly illegally racist.
Have you been drinking again?
 
By the terms of our Constitution, which became effective on June 21st, 1788, (when New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify it), Congress, and only Congress, was authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4). By this provision Congress, and not our Judicial Branch of government or our Executive Branch, is vested with the exclusive power to enact legislation determining how a foreign national may be bestowed the privilege of United States citizenship.

And why was this power vested in the Congress of the United States, the people's elected representatives, and not in any other branch of our government?

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, PAGE 1148.

Exercising its exclusive power to bestow the privilege of United States citizenship, Congress adopted its first uniform rules on March 26, 1790, “The Naturalization Act of 1790” (1 Stat. 103). For some of its features see ArtI.S8.C4.1.2.3 Early U.S. Naturalization Laws:

“The Act provided that any free white person who resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least two years could be granted citizenship if he or she showed good character and swore allegiance to the Constitution.1 The law also provided that the children of naturalized citizens under the age of twenty-one at the time of their parents’ naturalization and who were residing in the United States would be considered U.S. citizens.2 The children of U.S. citizens who were born outside the United States were deemed U.S. citizens unless their fathers had never resided in the United States.3 Additionally, Congress delegated to the courts the power to administer the naturalization process.4

”In 1795 Congress amended the naturalization law by requiring an applicant to submit a declaration of intent to become a citizen at least three years before naturalization, and extending the minimum residence requirement to five years.5 Then, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which, among other things, lengthened the period in which to declare an intent to become a citizen to five years, lengthened the minimum residence requirement to fourteen years, and barred the naturalization of any alien from a country at war with the United States.6 In 1802, Congress repealed the previous laws and restored both the five-year residence requirement and the three-year declaration of intent period.7

”In the ensuing years, Congress continued to establish naturalization policies with varying conditions and restrictions.8 Despite these differences, naturalization laws uniformly required that an applicant prove residence in the United States for a specific time period before acquiring citizenship.9”



The Fourteenth Amendment is adopted.


The next important rule of law provision concerning citizenship in the United States is the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares in part:

Section 1:
”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.”

Section 5:

”The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”


Let us now establish some facts:

FACT:
Congress has not exercised its exclusive power under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, to grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.


FACT: Congress has not exercised its Section 5 authority to adopt appropriate legislation under the 14th Amendment granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

NOTE: “Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE


FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation extending birth right citizenship to Indians by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

FACT: To date there is no appropriate legislation or statutory law adopted by Congress granting citizenship to a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national. Today, nothing more than unwritten policy recognizes them as citizens upon birth.


FACT: To date there is no Supreme Court case confirming a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

CONTENTION Since Congress, and only Congress is authorized “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4), and Congress, and only Congress is vested with the exclusive power to adopt appropriate legislation under the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce its provisions, and has not acted to grant citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, it would be a flagrant and clear violation of our separation of powers doctrine for our Supreme Court to declare a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

What say you?

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

This is where I side with Republicans.

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Executive Order Ending Birthright Citizenship​


And I don't understand who cares about babies of Mexicans who are here illegally.

Maybe in the past it made sense to allow babies of foreigners who were born here to be American citizens. We wanted more immigrants. We NEEDED more immigrants.

It's like giving a child tax credit when we want people to have lots of kids. When we don't what do we do? We take away the tax credit.

So let's say terrorists from the middle east start coming here with women, knocking those women up here, just to get those babies social security numbers. Then they go back and raise those terrorist babies to hate America. But they are American citizens because their parents had them here. Now we can't do much about them. Free speech remember?

Liberals, what are the negatives to doing away with this? So who's the pussy Federal Judge trying to block this?
 
What was the 1980s Amnesty Act?


The Immigration Reform and Control Act was signed by President Ronald Reagan and enacted in November 1986. The act granted temporary legal status to any undocumented immigrants who had been living in the United States continuously since 1982 so long as they paid a $185 fee and could demonstrate good moral character.

Amnesty | Immigration Solutions LLC

Illegal/Unconstitutional "law"
 
Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.


"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."


Trump can't do jack shit about it.
 
The purchase of Manhattan was fake because the Dutch paid some natives who were just passing through, and were not the actual owners.
So who were "the actual owners?" Please be specific and explain the basis of their entitlement.
 
Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.


"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."


Trump can't do jack shit about it.


". . . and subject to their jurisdiction . . . "
Keep in mind Howard’s comment does not address the important question of what is meant by “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and that omission is in addition to you suspiciously avoiding the inclusion of Senator Reverdy Johnson’s clarification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Johnson notes the absolute necessity connected to citizenship upon birth as follows:

[A]ll that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Parents who are subject to the authority of the United States, within the meaning of the Fourteenth, enjoy political privileges such as voting, and have military service obligations when called upon, which is not the case of parents who are foreign nationals, and especially of foreign nationals who illegally enter the United States who give birth to offspring.


there is no S.C. Case, or Act of Congress by which citizenship is recognized for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil. Doing so is mere unwritten federal policy. And under Article 2 of our Constitution, our President gets to exercise administrative policy changes, such as was exercised by Biden with his disastrous and destructive open border policy.

This policy making authority of our President, is a hallmark of our Republican Form of Government, which also provides for elections in order to accommodate change of existing public policy, as determined by the people through elections.

Since our Constitution does not grant citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil, nor has Congress acted to grant such citizenship, or does a Supreme Court case exist in which this question was explicitly presented to our Supreme Court for consideration and affirmed such citizenship, and that mere federal policy has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States, President Trump is free to exercise his administrative policy-making power, so long as it does not violate any provisions of our Constitution, and he may change existing federal policy which has recognized the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born while on American soil as citizens of the United States upon birth.

Elections have consequences! Go suck an egg.
 
". . . and subject to their jurisdiction . . . "
The meaning is clear and stated quite plainly. Only those children born to ambassadors and hostile occupation forces are excluded.

End of story.

Trump is attempting to undo one of the Republican Party's greatest achievements.
 
". . . and subject to their jurisdiction . . . "
Keep in mind Howard’s comment does not address the important question of what is meant by “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”,

Yes, he did. Anyone who is not the child of an ambassador or other foreign diplomats.

The Supreme Court has held this up time and again.

Trump's a performative asshole. Nothing more.
 

Forum List

Back
Top