Trump wants to modify the 14th Amendment

[Mac-7]

That he legally can do. But we're stuck with the parentless kids.

Foster homes

 

[Rawley]

That's not legal under the 14th and wong. Not that Trump might not try it for a diversion.

It will be challenged and go up the Supreme Court.

For over 150 years, and under the ONLY SC interpretation of the 14th, that is supported by historical papers of the framers of the 14th, a kid born here is a citizen.

Actually, the historical records say just he opposite.

"During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”12 A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship."

"We do not know the specific reason for the change in phraseology. However, it is irrelevant in our search for the meaning of the Amendment, because Senator Jacob Howard, the Amendment’s co-author, described it as “simply declaratory of … the law of the land already,”14 referring to the Civil Rights Act already enacted. Thus, he was confirming that the 14th Amendment, with slightly different wording, was intended to constitutionalize the statute’s requirement that the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”"

Birthright Citizenship: Two Perspectives

Note from the Editor: This pair of articles debates the original meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Am...

fedsoc.org

 

[M14 Shooter]

That he legally can do. But we're stuck with the parentless kids.

Only if the parents don't take them.

 

[bendog]

Only if the parents don't take them.

True.

 

[bendog]

It will be challenged and go up the Supreme Court.

Actually, the historical records say just he opposite.

"During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”12 A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship."

"We do not know the specific reason for the change in phraseology. However, it is irrelevant in our search for the meaning of the Amendment, because Senator Jacob Howard, the Amendment’s co-author, described it as “simply declaratory of … the law of the land already,”14 referring to the Civil Rights Act already enacted. Thus, he was confirming that the 14th Amendment, with slightly different wording, was intended to constitutionalize the statute’s requirement that the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”"

Birthright Citizenship: Two Perspectives

Note from the Editor: This pair of articles debates the original meaning of Section 1 of the 14th Am...

fedsoc.org

and wong kim ark was NOT subject to any for power because he was born here. He was NEVER chinese.

THAT was the issue.

There are some who want to try and resurrect the argument that he was chinese because his parents were chinese. But that would defeat the purpose of the 14th. Under the 13th, slaves were NOT OK. Under the 14th, the rich cannot import cheap, non-citizen labor whose children would grow up as serfs, with no rights.

 

[Doc7505]

Biden is not worried about what you think.

~~~~~~
Is he still capable of thinking? More like drooling

 

[Doc7505]

It takes an amendment. There is already case law on this.

~~~~~~
One possible route to settle the question is at Congress, which does have constitutionally established powers related to the naturalization of potential citizens. In fact, it was an act of Congress in 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act, that established all Native Americans were citizens. But in the short term, a solution in Congress could be problematic. The Senate’s legislative filibuster would make it problematic for Republican leadership, if so inclined, to advance a bill to a vote.
A constitutional amendment faces a higher bar since two-thirds of the House and the Senate need to agree on the proposed amendment and its wording, to present it to the states for ratification.

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

www.cairco.org

**********​

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

 

[Rawley]

and wong kim ark was NOT subject to any for power because he was born here. He was NEVER chinese.

You're begging the question. English woman working here gives birth, you're saying England is not going to recognize the kid as an English citizen?

THAT was the issue.

There are some who want to try and resurrect the argument that he was chinese because his parents were chinese. But that would defeat the purpose of the 14th. Under the 13th, slaves were NOT OK. Under the 14th, the rich cannot import cheap, non-citizen labor whose children would grow up as serfs, with no rights.

 

[Robert W]

Trump plans to withhold citizenship from newborn Americans

The president-elect's day one plans include an executive order to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship, rewriting the 14th Amendment.

www.msnbc.com

Good luck with that. Someone tell the moron that an executive order ain't gonna get it. He needs a Constitutional amendment, and he ain't gonna get that either!

Bigly!!!

First things first. You used MSNBC. The enemy of the public. Trump knows how the constitution gets amended. Due to the Biden regime of welcoming all aliens, criminals included, he has a real good chance to get that amendment passed. We have both houses.

 

[lafayette]

First things first. You used MSNBC. The enemy of the public. Trump knows how the constitution gets amended. Due to the Biden regime of welcoming all aliens, criminals included, he has a real good chance to get that amendment passed. We have both houses.

He has as much chance as you on the average of being right, which is about half of the time.

Not nearly enough.

 

[whitehall]

MSNBC? Wasn't the network involved in the big lie about Biden's mental health? Is MSNBC's opinion of Trump's opinion of the 14th Amendment even worth discussing?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

~~~~~~
One possible route to settle the question is at Congress, which does have constitutionally established powers related to the naturalization of potential citizens. In fact, it was an act of Congress in 1924, the Indian Citizenship Act, that established all Native Americans were citizens. But in the short term, a solution in Congress could be problematic. The Senate’s legislative filibuster would make it problematic for Republican leadership, if so inclined, to advance a bill to a vote.
A constitutional amendment faces a higher bar since two-thirds of the House and the Senate need to agree on the proposed amendment and its wording, to present it to the states for ratification.

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

www.cairco.org

**********​

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

SCROTUS Speakum with Forked Tongue

Another glaring contradiction. If the 14th allowed anchor babies, Indians, too, would have been granted citizenship 50 years before that finally happened.

Those who want to abet this invasion claim we need an Amendment, but the truth is that the Supremes can interpret the Constitution any way 5 Justices want. That document is nothing but lawyerly double-talk.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Trump plans to withhold citizenship from newborn Americans

The president-elect's day one plans include an executive order to narrow the scope of birthright citizenship, rewriting the 14th Amendment.

www.msnbc.com

Good luck with that. Someone tell the moron that an executive order ain't gonna get it. He needs a Constitutional amendment, and he ain't gonna get that either!

Bigly!!!

All that needs to help settled is "subject to the jurisdiction of"...

 

[ThisIsMe]

By executive action didn’t the Kenyan King **** over Americans and create his very own personal type of citizenship with DACA?
What makes you think Trump can’t tweak the 14th in favor of those real core Americans you hate?

That's a good point.....obama used his pen and his phone to create a new citizen path.... but then he did say he would "go around congress"..

 

[ThisIsMe]

The proper interpretation is the one today.

It will not change with this incoming administration.

If you believe that then the only option is to deport the parents and they can choose if their child gets to stay or go with them.

That's a terrible at position you all have put these people in.

 

[sparky]

That's a terrible at position you all have put these people in.

Anyone leaving their country to give birth in another is already in a terrible position

If their country s*cks that much that they have to do so, why is it our problem?

~S~

 

[Unkotare]

If you believe that then the only option is to deport the parents and they can choose if their child gets to stay or go with them.

That's a terrible at position you all have put these people in.

Isn't it a terrible position they put themselves in?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Would it be silly to ask you for a citation?

How about this:

The court ruled again in 1982 when Texas attempted to withhold education funds for the children of undocumented immigrants. In Plyler v. Doe, the court reasoned that undocumented immigrants are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and are consequently afforded 14th Amendment protections.

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship on 1st day. What does that mean? What about Barron?

If President-elect Donald Trump bans birthright citizenship, would that affect his son, Barron? Here's what to know about what it means.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The court in wong kim ark did not say a Constitutional Amendment was necessary. They interpreted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" in one way. Why can't the current SC interpret it differently?

Because it is plain English. Plyler said that they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Isn't it a terrible position they put themselves in?

The democrats keep the enticement to come here by not securing the border, free ride to anywhere they want in the country and are even flying them in FROM Mexico.

It's the dems who have the red carpet laid out for them.