Trump can end fraudulent birthright citizenship bestowed on illegals offspring

[Curried Goats]

This is getting us nowhere

I forgot the rule about not mud wrestling with a pig

It's getting me a lot of laughs. Sorry you're salty that you come off as a moron who doesn't know illegals in America are under American jurisdiction.

 

[lafayette]

It means a lot

If you cant impress foreign citizens into our military its voids the current lib assumptions about birthright citizenship

And btw: take your personal insults and go **** yourself

The question of impressing foreign citizens has nothing to do with anchor baby citizenship.

The amendment would have to be reversed by amendment process. That is not in the cards right now.

 

[Rawley]

.
Note that the Wong Kim Ark ruling based birthright citizenship on the status of his parents when born, who were lawfully domiciled in the United States. Our current statutory wording for lawfully domiciled is lawful permanent residence (LPR) SOURCE

And, as expressed under existing statutory law see: A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if all of the following requirements are met at the time of the person’s birth:

The person is a child[2] of a U.S. citizen parent(s);

The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession before the person’s birth in accordance with the applicable provision;[3] and

The person meets all other applicable requirements under either INA 301 or INA 309.

.
Considering the current recognition of birthright citizenship granted to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national is nothing more than unwritten “policy”, President Trump has a number of options to put an end to birthright citizenship being recognized for the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. See: Here’s how Pres. Trump can end Birthright Citizenship…

YES! Trump can end fraudulent birthright citizenship being bestowed on the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals.

JWK

“If aliens might be admitted indiscriminately to enjoy all the rights of citizens at the will of a single state, the Union might itself be endangered by an influx of foreigners, hostile to its institutions, ignorant of its powers, and incapable of a due estimate of its privileges." - Joseph Story

He can try. And I hope he does.

 

[Mac-7]

It's getting me a lot of laughs. Sorry you're salty that you come off as a moron who doesn't know illegals in America are under American jurisdiction.

Of course

You are a non serious person, aka a clown

 

[Mac-7]

The question of impressing foreign citizens has nothing to do with anchor baby citizenship.

The amendment would have to be reversed by amendment process. That is not in the cards right now.

What does the current amendment say about children of diplomats?

It says nothing

That exception is created by congress

And it can be applied to illegal aliens also

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Good luck with that.

It's not going to change until we get the anti-Whites out of power. But like you say, good luck with that.

 

[lafayette]

What does the current amendment say about children of diplomats?

It says nothing

That exception is created by congress

And it can be applied to illegal aliens also

How? Explain it.

 

[Unkotare]

It's not going to change until we get the anti-Whites out of power. ....

The plight of the white man in America is truly tragic. Have you seen breakfast cereal commercials lately? Another outrage!

 

[Mac-7]

How? Explain it.

Congress decided to deny citizenship to babies born to diplomats

It can do the same to illegal aliens or fake asylum seekers

 

[my2¢]

AMENDMENT XIV

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.

The only children born in the U.S. that don't qualify as citizens are those of foreign diplomates who have diplomatic immunity. Nothing any President can do a thing about it.

 

[johnwk]

AMENDMENT XIV

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.

The only children born in the U.S. that don't qualify as citizens are those of foreign diplomates who have diplomatic immunity. Nothing any President can do a thing about it.

Your opinion is noted but it is not in harmony with the meaning of "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." as the words were understood by those who framed the amendment and helped to ratify it, e.g. ,
John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment, remarks on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” as it appears in the amendment:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866)

On May 30th, of the 14th Amendment debates Senator Trumbull states:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means….“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." see: Cong. Globe 39th Congress, page 2893, 1st and 2nd columns

Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State… “Now, all 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.” …he then continues “…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.”.”___ Cong. Globe. Page 2893 2nd dolumn, halfway down

Mr. HOWARD later follows up with regard to the meaning of “jurisdiction” by saying: “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” SEE: Cong.Globe, 39th Congress, page 2895, middle column

And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) with regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the SCOTUS emphatically states:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

And then in 1884, the Supreme Court once again echoes the intentions for which “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was written into the 14th Amendment:

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”_ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)

And a D.C. Federal District Court once again echoes the intentions for which “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was written into the 14th Amendment as found in Elk v. Wilkins, in Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015),

The Court, in 2015, while expounding upon jus soli writes the following:

"And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. 456 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection… Children, born in England, of aliens, were 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.”).

Appellants would find any allegiance requirement of no moment because, as non-citizen nationals, American Samoans already “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); see also Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. at 155 (“[A]llegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth, is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”). Yet, within the context of the Citizenship Clause, “[t]he evident meaning of the … words [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)(emphasis added).


A child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national does not meet the qualifier "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." as the wording was understood by those who framed and helped to ratify the amendment.

Current policy, and not statutory law, is recognizing the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil as a U. S. citizens upon their birth. If you can find a statutory law to the contrary, quote its wording and give its citation.

The fact is, Trump can change the above mentioned "policy" with the stroke of his pen.

 

[Curried Goats]

Of course

You are a non serious person, aka a clown

Tell us all again how illegals in America aren't under American jurisdiction....

 

[g5000]

Now you are splitting hairs

But its still an anchor baby

Nope.

A child who is a US citizen cannot sponsor a non-citizen parent until the child is 21.

So this "anchor" bullshit is a hoax. It's a deliberately crafted trigger word designed to excite you rubes.

 

[g5000]

Your opinion is noted but it is not in harmony with the meaning of "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." as the words were understood by those who framed the amendment and helped to ratify it, e.g. ,
John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment, remarks on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” as it appears in the amendment:

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866)

On May 30th, of the 14th Amendment debates Senator Trumbull states:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means….“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens." see: Cong. Globe 39th Congress, page 2893, 1st and 2nd columns

Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State… “Now, all 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.” …he then continues “…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.”.”___ Cong. Globe. Page 2893 2nd dolumn, halfway down

Mr. HOWARD later follows up with regard to the meaning of “jurisdiction” by saying: “I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois, in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” SEE: Cong.Globe, 39th Congress, page 2895, middle column

And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) with regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the SCOTUS emphatically states:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

And then in 1884, the Supreme Court once again echoes the intentions for which “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was written into the 14th Amendment:

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”_ Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884)

And a D.C. Federal District Court once again echoes the intentions for which “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was written into the 14th Amendment as found in Elk v. Wilkins, in Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015),

The Court, in 2015, while expounding upon jus soli writes the following:

"And even assuming the framers intended the Citizenship Clause to constitutionally codify jus soli principles, birthright citizenship does not simply follow the flag. Since its conception jus soli has incorporated a requirement of allegiance to the sovereign. To the extent jus soli is adopted into the Fourteenth Amendment, the concept of allegiance is manifested by the Citizenship Clause’s mandate that birthright citizens not merely be born within the territorial boundaries of the United States but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1, cl. 1; see Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 655, 18 S.Ct. 456 (“The principle embraced all persons born within the king’s allegiance, and subject to his protection… Children, born in England, of aliens, were 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.”).

Appellants would find any allegiance requirement of no moment because, as non-citizen nationals, American Samoans already “owe permanent allegiance to the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22); see also Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. at 155 (“[A]llegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is; and allegiance by birth, is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign.”). Yet, within the context of the Citizenship Clause, “[t]he evident meaning of the … words [“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”] is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 102, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)(emphasis added).


A child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national does not meet the qualifier "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." as the wording was understood by those who framed and helped to ratify the amendment.

Current policy, and not statutory law, is recognizing the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil as a U. S. citizens upon their birth. If you can find a statutory law to the contrary, quote its wording and give its citation.

The fact is, Trump can change the above mentioned "policy" with the stroke of his pen.

You have seriously misunderstood the authors of the amendment.

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.

 

[Care4all]

While I agree, the fact is that there are top dollar lawyers anywhere who can spin any piece of law to mean whatever they want it to mean, to the point that it's almost pointless to argue about such matters.

Law spinners are everywhere....that's why the supreme court was final judge on constitutionally....in the Ark decision....

 

[Care4all]

It has delayed many deportations

There is already libs saying we cant deport the parent and leave the child behind

Or how dare we deport an American citizen

Your side will say anything you can think of

But WWJD?

 

[g5000]

But WWJD?

Jesus would sleep with a porn star, steal from some cancer kids, found a fake university, accuse Peter of killing JFK, build a casino, and call it good.

 

[Care4all]

What does the current amendment say about children of diplomats?

It says nothing

That exception is created by congress

And it can be applied to illegal aliens also

No.

It can't silly one.

Diplomatic immunity is for active foreign diplomats and their families, because under the law, when visiting or living in the USA, they are NOT under our jurisdiction, but under the jurisdiction of the foreign nation they work for....

And since they are not here under our jurisdiction but the jurisdiction of their home country, and child born here of theirs was NOT under our jurisdiction.... thus not an American when born....

Do the undocumented parents of the children born here have to abide or answer to our laws? The answer is Yes. They are under our jurisdiction, our laws....and enforcement.

 

[Mac-7]

Nope.

A child who is a US citizen cannot sponsor a non-citizen parent until the child is 21.

So this "anchor" bullshit is a hoax. It's a deliberately crafted trigger word designed to excite you rubes.

But when they reach 21 they can sponsor their whole family in centersl America, goats and sll

So ut is a serious threat to America

 

[Mac-7]

But WWJD?

Thanks to Godless libs and the separation of church and state that is s question that no longer needs an answer

Your little game of having it both ways no longer applies