Trump wants to modify the 14th Amendment

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Don't see how that really helps.

All Trump has to do is tell the Social Security Administration to not issue SS numbers to children unless at least one of the parents show they are in the country legally.

You can't do that under Plyler v. Doe.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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~

Because the left entice them to come. The people crossing know the left will fight tooth and nail to keep them here. So, them coming is inevitable when you have the red carpet laid out and say "come on over, it's ooookay!"

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

The English can't touch him unless he returns to the United Kingdom of his own free will. They cannot "order him home" like other British citizens.

 

[Rawley]

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

Plyer didn't make them citizens, they said illegals (including children) have rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th. Absolutely nothing to do with citizenship

 

[Rawley]

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

Yup They are.

 

[Rawley]

You can't do that under Plyler v. Doe.

Absolutely can.

 

[Rawley]

The English can't touch him unless he returns to the United Kingdom of his own free will. They cannot "order him home" like other British citizens.

Sure they can , Citizenship is automatic if one of your parents is English.

FYI Brits do not grant citizenship to kid born in England to illegals.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Plyer didn't make them citizens, they said illegals (including children) have rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th. Absolutely nothing to do with citizenship

It said the 14th amendment applied, making them subject to the jurisdiction of the United Sates. If they were born here, they are citizens. It broadened the application of the 14th Amendment to include illegals, and all of your whining will not change that when it comes to citizenship at birth in the US.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Sure they can , Citizenship is automatic if one of your parents is English.

FYI Brits do not grant citizenship to kid born in England to illegals.

No. He is an American citizen, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can't make someone take British citizenship unless they want it. They can just claim to be American.

FYI, did you know Winton Churchill had dual citizenship?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Absolutely can.

SCOTUS ruled they are citizens, and the Presudent can't simply declare that in an Executive Order because it violates the 14th according to the court case. Do you even read what you type?

 

[Doc7505]

Is It Constitutional? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in America

https://floppingaces.net/most-wanted/is-it-constitutional-rethinking-birthright-citizenship-in-america/

11 Dec 2024 ~~ By

​

Well, welcome. Thank you so much for coming tonight. My name is Arthur. I’m the associate director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics here at the Heritage Foundation.
Tonight we seek to reopen a question which, for the past decades, has been buried by polite society. Those that even hover near the question of birthright citizenship—not to mention those trying to argue for a different principle by which to understand it—immediately feel the wrath of the ruling class. Serious constitutional and historical arguments are simply dismissed. The vitriol over the topic implies that elite opinion, or the press, or international organizations should define on behalf of American citizens what constitutes citizenship in America. These authorities would silence reasonable questions regarding consent, sovereignty, and the national.
And yet, in 2011, 65% of Americans opposed automatic citizenship for children born here to illegal immigrants. This too is dismissed. Many today have forgotten the meaning of citizenship, so much so that it is given out more and more with ever greater ease. Following this, both foreign nations and foreign individuals have sought to exploit our practices.

Commentary:
See the Video and then respond...
IMHO, the constitution and it's amendments, while appearing on the surface to be "plain" english, have a lot more supporting requirements that we can only ascertain with the assistance of the efforts of constitutional scholars. The second speaker (constitutional scholar) laid out the issue in terms that make total sense.It would be helpful if you could publish the names and backgrounds of the speakers.

 

[Rawley]

It said the 14th amendment applied, making them subject to the jurisdiction of the United Sates.

Nope

If they were born here, they are citizens.

Nope

It broadened the application of the 14th Amendment to include illegals, and all of your whining will not change that when it comes to citizenship at birth in the US.

You poopyhead. I win.

 

[Rawley]

SCOTUS ruled they are citizens, and the Presudent can't simply declare that in an Executive Order because it violates the 14th according to the court case.

Sure he can

Do you even read what you type?

You poopyhead. I win

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope

Nope

You poopyhead. I win.

A complete waste of electrons.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Because the left entice them to come. The people crossing know the left will fight tooth and nail to keep them here. So, them coming is inevitable when you have the red carpet laid out and say "come on over, it's ooookay!"

Treason Is Not a Property Right

Just the Left? The Rightist businessmen are colluding with the rulers' other branch in order to get cheap labor that they can easily wage-gouge and push around.

That's what the robber-baron Party's Civil War was really all about. Later, Henry Ford's grandson integrated Detroit in order to break up the solidarity of the UAW. That's when the Big Three started turning out shitty cars.

 

[Rawley]

A complete waste of electrons.

Not a complete waste, it's rather humorous watching you so publicly broadcast your abject ignorance. Ignorance, pretension and condescension is always an entertaining combination. Please do keep up.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It said the 14th amendment applied, making them subject to the jurisdiction of the United Sates. If they were born here, they are citizens. It broadened the application of the 14th Amendment to include illegals, and all of your whining will not change that when it comes to citizenship at birth in the US.

Bury Marbury

Since no one can judge himself, it must be up to the other branches to repeal judicial review. Before SCROTUS gave itself a veto power on legislation, the President or a legislator could oppose a bill based on his interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Not a complete waste, it's rather humorous watching you so publicly broadcast your abject ignorance. Ignorance, pretension and condescension is always an entertaining combination. Please do keep up.

Fanboys of Fascists

Constitution-bangers give themselves a feeling of importance by associating themselves with the arrogant presumption of the "Just Us"es' self-given authority.

 

[martybegan]

Opinion | One of Trump’s most vulnerable Day One targets: 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!!!

I'm up for a Constitutional Convention. I will never happen, but I am up for it.

 

[para bellum]

No. He is an American citizen, and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can't make someone take British citizenship unless they want it. They can just claim to be American.

FYI, did you know Winton Churchill had dual citizenship?

I have been reading up on this, and I am reaching the conclusion that an originalist interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction of" is not about being subject to the local laws. That was assumed- a person is subject to local laws wherever he is.

It was about allegiance, not geography. This was a point of contention when English ships would stop US merchants at sea, and remove Englishmen to press them into military service.

"Subject to the jurisdiction of" meant "who has claim to the person, the country where he was living or the country of his nationality?"

And also "who is entitled to the protection of the country of his nationality?" When we travel abroad, we have some protections as US citizens. We still have to abide by local laws, but if we are detained, the gov't will (in theory) try to get us released, if we are accused of a crime, the gov't will demand we receive due process, etc.

There was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" when the 14th was adopted. The first law criminalizing unauthorized entry to the US was passed in 1929. Immigrants were either naturalized, or they were not naturalized. There was no question about legal presence.

Wong Kim Ark didn't grant citizenship to Native Americans, so "all persons" didn't really mean ALL persons...

I think the Congress could pass legislation using their Section 5 authority that defines "all persons" as persons lawfully present, and it would probably stand up in an originalist Supreme Court.

I think the EO route is problematic, but I am not convinced an amendment is the only way to change the interpretation of the citizenship clause in Wong Kim Ark...