Trump pledges to protect Americans and end birthright citizenship by executive order on day one.

[surada]

This didn't start with President Trump you stupid kunt.

Oh... You're every bit as stupid and vulgar as Trump. He can't change the constitution with an executive order.

 

[surada]

They still are nationals of their illegal alien parents birth country.

Nope. If you're on US soil you're under US jurisdiction. Do you understand what that means?

 

[Billiejeens]

Nope. If you're on US soil you're under US jurisdiction. Do you understand what that means?

I told them that you would post 500 posts on jurisdiction without knowing what it meant.

I love that I'm never wrong.

 

[surada]

Yeah, every constitutional scholar knows that any president can sign away our constitutional rights with little more than a stroke of a pen.

You're great.

 

[BackAgain]

Once more with feeling:

An Executive Order is not the way to go.

It will only be snuffed out by even Conservative SCOTUS Justices. Properly so.

I’d prefer it if Trump (and DeSantis, etc.) all make a pledge to seek to pass a Constitutional Amendment to clarify that we no longer support the ridiculous notion of anchor babies becoming US citizens just because an alien mom gave birth to the child on our soil.

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

Nope. If you're on US soil you're under US jurisdiction. Do you understand what that means?

Senator Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act and chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, was an ardent supporter of Howard’s version of the citizenship clause. “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.” Not owing allegiance to anybody else, subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and not subject to a foreign power. During debate over the Civil Rights Act, Senator Trumbull remarked that purpose of its citizenship clause was “[t]o make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”


The justification for this is the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A detailed look at the 14th Amendment’s legislative history and the debates over similar laws at the time, though, makes it obvious that the authors of the law never intended it to cover the children of foreign nationals illegally in the United States:

The [1866] Civil Rights Act provided the first definition of citizenship after the ratification of the 13th Amendment, specifying “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Thus an overwhelming majority of Congress on the eve of the debate over the meaning of the citizenship clause of section 1 of the 14th Amendment were committed to the view that foreigners — and presumably aliens — were not subject to birthright citizenship.

 

[surada]

I told them that you would post 500 posts on jurisdiction without knowing what it meant.

I love that I'm never wrong.

No other country has jurisdiction in the US partial or otherwise.

MAGA Macho Man

The statute is very specific about diplomats and American Indians. I've posted the statute 6 times. Haven't you read it?

 

[MAGA Macho Man]

No other country has jurisdiction in the US partial or otherwise.

MAGA Macho Man

The statute is very specific about diplomats and American Indians. I've posted the statute 6 times. Haven't you read it?

There will have to be a lawsuit that will hopefully end up with the SC to define what was meant by the 14th Amendment. Does anyone with a brain think that the way it is being abused is the way what they were talking about?

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

"It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country."

This will be the argument, and it is backed by many scholars.

Anchor babies never should have been allowed in the first place.

No other country in the world has that, nor should they. Illegal aliens expect to be treated well, which is the first mistake. I think people now have reached a boiling point, because at this point, when you have no vetting of what's slithering across the border, you are being invaded. It's really that simple.

 

[Billiejeens]

No other country has jurisdiction in the US partial or otherwise.

MAGA Macho Man

The statute is very specific about diplomats and American Indians. I've posted the statute 6 times. Haven't you read it?

Intelligent people can have discussions on what was and wasn't intended in the amendment and how it should be applied.
Then there's you.

 

[Billiejeens]

There will have to be a lawsuit that will hopefully end up with the SC to define what was meant by the 14th Amendment. Does anyone with a brain think that the way it is being abused is the way what they were talking about?

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

"It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country."

This will be the argument, and it is backed by many scholars.

Anchor babies never should have been allowed in the first place.

No other country in the world has that, nor should they. Illegal aliens expect to be treated well, which is the first mistake. I think people now have reached a boiling point, because at this point, when you have no vetting of what's slithering across the border, you are being invaded. It's really that simple.

Of course.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Nope. If you're on US soil you're under US jurisdiction. Do you understand what that means?

No other country has jurisdiction in the US partial or otherwise.

MAGA Macho Man

The statute is very specific about diplomats and American Indians. I've posted the statute 6 times. Haven't you read it?

NEGATIVE….here’s some free enlightenment Guadalupe.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment/#:~:text=The%20court%27s%20interpretation%20of%20the,—only%20permanent%2C%20legal%20residents.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Perhaps not, but they wrote it the way they did. There really is no question what the words say.

The words say what your globalist minded self wants to believe they say. You’re mistaken…here’s some free enlightenment.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment/#:~:text=The%20court%27s%20interpretation%20of%20the,—only%20permanent%2C%20legal%20residents.

 

[easyt65]

No we aren't. Trump is incapable of learning...too lazy I think. He talks smack and it doesn't matter. He's a loser.

Sure thing, bot.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I think the 14th gets abused by third worlders. But im not for stripping citizenship from anyone.
Im also not a conservative, dont support trump, and dont want that statist to even try to repeal the interpretation of the 14th.
Go ahead, FAGAt, lie some more.

An erroneous interpretation of the 14th doesn't need to be repealed. Just stop following it. Someone will sue to enforce the error and it goes to the Supreme Court. The same Court that fixed the Roe v Wade error.

 

[Unkotare]

.......and then to the parents, siblings, etc...

It's nuts.

No we don't.

 

[Unkotare]

They still are nationals of their illegal alien parents birth country.

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The words say what your globalist minded self wants to believe they say. You’re mistaken…here’s some free enlightenment.
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment/#:~:text=The%20court%27s%20interpretation%20of%20the,—only%20permanent%2C%20legal%20residents.

I can read the words, I do not need someone to tell me what they say.

 

[Curried Goats]

An erroneous interpretation of the 14th doesn't need to be repealed. Just stop following it. Someone will sue to enforce the error and it goes to the Supreme Court. The same Court that fixed the Roe v Wade error.

Please try it. That worked out so well for you clowns. Republicans running elections are now shitting themselves because abortion is an issue that's going to rout Republicans nationally like it did in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. These are losing issues that were great to campaign on and throw as red meat to the mutants who make up the Republican base but it's coming back to kick you in the teeth.

 

[surada]

An erroneous interpretation of the 14th doesn't need to be repealed. Just stop following it. Someone will sue to enforce the error and it goes to the Supreme Court. The same Court that fixed the Roe v Wade error.

Erroneous interpretation?

Can you read?

 

[easyt65]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

I'm sorry, but I disagree. If some illegal immigrant from Guatemala walks all the way to the US border, illegally crosses into the US, takes 5 steps onto US soil, and delivers her baby,that woman is still an illegal immigrant.

IMO it should take more than that to receive every US Constitutional right an American citizen has, to include every tax payer-funded benefit. Then again, WTH, is tbe venefit of being a US citizen when an illegal can cross the border and get tax payer-funded food, lodging, medical care, education, etc...?!

Why is it that there are a lot of liberals who demand this 'illegal' baby immediately be given every US Constitutional right and protection the second it is delivered on US soil yet have argued / want the right to kill a baby outside the womb after surviving a failed abortion?

Doesn't THAT baby have every right to live, to have every Consitutional right and protection as the baby delivered by an illegal on US soil?