Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 120,322
- 3,635
”he [trump] is an American moron!”
Hey, look at that. We finally agree on something.
Hey, look at that. We finally agree on something.
Are you a constitutional scholar?
If not, then it is not clear.
If you read the words:
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. 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.
However, if you renounce your citizenship and apply for US citizenship and are accepted, then your child will be born a US citizen, not a naturalized citizen.
Last edited:
kyzr
Diamond Member
Lets try to read one more time, paraphrasing...the intent was to give US citizenship to the freed slaves, over the objection of some States. The intended interpretation was to include foreign born slaves, but to exclude foreign born citizens of other countries:
"This will not include persons born in the US who are foreigners, or aliens, or families of ambassadors."
Most other countries in the world do not give citizenship to births other than by citizens. It has created a cottage industry for Chinese and Russians and others that may not have US interests at heart, 1 in 12 births are by illegals/foreigners.
H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #844
With intent you can make it say anything you can dream up, because intent is just an opinion of what someone thought 200 plus years ago.
I know a lot of people that 100% disagree that the founders intended for something like porn to be covered by the 1st. How do you prove your opinion of their intent is better than someone else opinion of their intent.
H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #845
Nope, nothing in here about being an alien...seems your talking points email lied to you
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.
NightFox
Wildling
You prove it by asking the 9 black robed dictators on the Supreme Court what their opinion of the intent is.
H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #847
Only if those 9 folks think that the proper way to interpret the constitution is via determining intent.
- Banned
- #848
Legislative attempts to overturn Wong Kim Ark
In response to public reaction against immigration[116] and fears that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit legal residency and eventual citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible to remain in the country, bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the Citizenship Clause and have sought (thus far unsuccessfully) to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens.[196] As one example among many, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009"—introduced in the House of Representatives of the 111th Congress as H.R. 1868, by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia—was an attempt to exclude U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from being considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause.[197] A similar proposal—named the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011"—was introduced in the House as H.R. 140 in the (112th) Congress on January 5, 2011 by Representative Steve King of Iowa,[198] and in the Senate as S. 723 on April 5, 2011 by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.[199] Neither bill was discussed in Congress prior to the end of the session.
Since an act of Congress challenging the accepted interpretation of the Citizenship Clause might very possibly be ruled unconstitutional by courts choosing to rely on Wong Kim Ark as a precedent,[187] proposals have also been made to amend the Constitution so as to override the Fourteenth Amendment's language and deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or foreign visitors. For example, Senator Vitter of Louisiana introduced Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.) 6 in the 111th Congress, but like H.R. 1868, it failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress before the 111th Congress adjourned on December 22, 2010.[200] Vitter reintroduced this same proposed amendment as S.J.Res. 2 in the 112th Congress on January 25, 2011; it was not brought up for discussion or voted upon in either house of Congress.[201]
In 2010 and 2011, state legislators in Arizona introduced bills proposing to deny regular birth certificates to children born in Arizona whose parents could not prove they were in the United States legally. Supporters of such legislation reportedly hoped their efforts would cause the issue of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to reach the Supreme Court, possibly resulting in a new decision narrowing or overruling Wong Kim Ark.[202][203][204]
On October 30, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his intention to issue an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens.[205] On this same date, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he would introduce legislation in Congress to accomplish the same thing.[206]
In response to public reaction against immigration[116] and fears that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit legal residency and eventual citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible to remain in the country, bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the Citizenship Clause and have sought (thus far unsuccessfully) to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens.[196] As one example among many, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009"—introduced in the House of Representatives of the 111th Congress as H.R. 1868, by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia—was an attempt to exclude U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from being considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause.[197] A similar proposal—named the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011"—was introduced in the House as H.R. 140 in the (112th) Congress on January 5, 2011 by Representative Steve King of Iowa,[198] and in the Senate as S. 723 on April 5, 2011 by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.[199] Neither bill was discussed in Congress prior to the end of the session.
Since an act of Congress challenging the accepted interpretation of the Citizenship Clause might very possibly be ruled unconstitutional by courts choosing to rely on Wong Kim Ark as a precedent,[187] proposals have also been made to amend the Constitution so as to override the Fourteenth Amendment's language and deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or foreign visitors. For example, Senator Vitter of Louisiana introduced Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.) 6 in the 111th Congress, but like H.R. 1868, it failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress before the 111th Congress adjourned on December 22, 2010.[200] Vitter reintroduced this same proposed amendment as S.J.Res. 2 in the 112th Congress on January 25, 2011; it was not brought up for discussion or voted upon in either house of Congress.[201]
In 2010 and 2011, state legislators in Arizona introduced bills proposing to deny regular birth certificates to children born in Arizona whose parents could not prove they were in the United States legally. Supporters of such legislation reportedly hoped their efforts would cause the issue of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to reach the Supreme Court, possibly resulting in a new decision narrowing or overruling Wong Kim Ark.[202][203][204]
On October 30, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his intention to issue an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens.[205] On this same date, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he would introduce legislation in Congress to accomplish the same thing.[206]
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,235
- 1,590
Let's hope he can get it done. Birthright citizenship is one of those absolutely crazy ideas that should go.
Time for Trump to win for us again.
H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #850
While I do not agree with birthright citizenship, let's hope he cannot get it done via EO, do you really want any POTUS to be able to alter the constitution via EO?
NightFox
Wildling
Don't get your hopes up Norman, I suspect that this talk of an EO is nothing more than an election gimmick and even if it isn't a Trumpian Gimmick there's a low probability that such an EO would be upheld by SCOTUS.
H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #852
We can only hope so, or maybe the next POTUS decides via EO that only members of a well regulated Militia are allowed to own guns..,
- Banned
- #853
The people that worship at The Alter of the Cult of Trump are too stupid to recognize that once a precedent is set re: EOs to alter Amendments, then the pooch is screwed.
Go ahead Trumpians; let Don Cheeto alter the 14th A with an EO & guess what you'll get from some 'liberal' POTUS down the road? The 2nd A wil become your new toilet tissue.
The intent of the 14th Amendment was to guarantee that former slaves that were born in the U.S. were American citizens.
That was it, PERIOD !
Illegals have used it as a loophole, to sneak into the U.S. and dump a kid, but that was NEVER the intent.
That was it, PERIOD !
Illegals have used it as a loophole, to sneak into the U.S. and dump a kid, but that was NEVER the intent.
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,235
- 1,590
Yes, of course.
Our policies are designed for illegals rather than Americans at mind.
H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #856
You are a little late to the party.
Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO
Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO
But why am I not surprised that a statist like you would support ignoring the Constitution.
Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO
Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO
But why am I not surprised that a statist like you would support ignoring the Constitution.
- Banned
- #858
iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,929
- 1,600
unless he does it through the proper channels (ie congress) this is pointless. EO's were never meant to be this far reaching.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
US economic growth revised lower in 4th quarter (to 0.7%). Damn- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 0
-
-
They Used Recycled Photos and Claimed They Showed a Girl's School in Iran- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 14
-
Tearful Olympian (and former Canadian who left for freedom) Kaillie Humphries awards Trump for supporting women's sport- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 4
