Most Americans are too compassionate for that kind of harsh. Much better to join 99% of the rest of the world and do away with Jus Soli. That alone will do away with 99% of the 'anchor babies' as the mothers won't have any reason to risk the dangerous journey to have their babies here and the problem is solved.
Your inflated sense of self-importance is hilarious.
As if this wasn't expected. Stop being a dumbass.
Do you know what a woman is?
The US citizen baby doesn’t anchor anything. Families are separated that way all the time.
You just don't get it. All Trump's losses are short term. Haven't you figured that out yet? In fact, your court challenges actually speed up the process."President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to end birthright citizenship was blocked in court for a third time Monday"
Maybe Trump should get the message and defend the Constitution.
It's the right thing to do.
Trump handed another defeat as third judge smacks down executive order
President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to end birthright citizenship was blocked in court for a third time Monday.A federal judge in New Hampshire issued an injunction halting Trump’s executive order — the third time it’s been hindered.Trump’s order sought to stop children of undocumented...www.rawstory.com
That isn't my experience. Show your evidence if you have any though.
More often, the US citizen child is left with a legal resident relative of the family. Sometimes that relative is a “relative.”
I personally know more than a few families that were separated in just that way. It’s not a secret. Especially among the immigrant community.
It happens usually when the parent commits a crime and is deported for that. Otherwise I don't know what you have experienced but, again, that is not my experience where I live. Certainly a deported parent can take his/her 'citizen' child with him/her. Nobody would stop that. So if there is separation, it is the choice of the parent and not our laws/government.
You're obviously not intelligent enough to take notes. Keep crying, bitch, it's gonna be a long 12 years for you.
Do you teach history? Jacob Howard--do your students know who he was?
I know a few families where the parents were deported after a traffic stop. Being in the country illegally is illegal. Of course the parents can take their child with them if they want to. No one is arguing otherwise.
I think you're doing Trump a disservice---he is at least twenty moves ahead of anyone on this board.
Financially, for sure!
Strategically as well.
All We Need of This Document Is the First Three Words
No one needs a powerful position to say that people can't get a legal right through illegal means. Since when is logic only valid depending on the status of whoever points it out?That is just total ignorance. Sure, you are not going to get into the debate over the 14th amendment in elementary school history. And you are just going to touch the 14th in high school, even an AP US History class.
The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Congress
The Congressional Globe contains the records for sessions of the U.S. Congress including summaries of proceedings, letters, speeches, and some legislation for the Senate and House of Representatives.digital.library.unt.edu
But there it is, "original intent". Senator Jacob Howard, of Michigan no less. ERRR. After the Civil War, Michigan, North Carolina, yeah. The amendment means exactly what it says. If you are born here, no matter your race or the status of your parents, you are a citizen. He clarifies that, firmly.
This whole "subject to the jurisdiction" is five hundred year old diplomatic speech because it is the children of foreign diplomats, diplomats that are not "subject to the jurisdiction". And it was native Americans, born on reservations, their parents were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They achieved their citizenship status through an act of Congress, decades after the 14th.
I mean this question was asked, and answered, way back in the beginning. To claim some other meaning to that jurisdiction clause is historical revisionism in the highest degree. The only possible argument is that those Hispanics crossing the border are an invasion force, laughable on its face. Besides, hell, ain't that what we all are? Outside Native Americans, didn't we all "invade" this continent? The Pilgrims and Puritans, the Irish, the Germans, the Swiss. Yeah, the Swiss. French, Spanish, Jewish, Muslim, they all "invaded".
And this birthright citizenship has been tried in the courts, many times. Jus Solis, in the purest form, has been the long standing understanding. At the time, it was groundbreaking. Today, not so much, dozens of countries have adopted it. Any attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship is a direct attack against the Constitution, and against the very foundation of this country.
