Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[scruffy]

The equal protection clause covers the legality.

lol

I don't think you'll sell that one.

 

[scruffy]

The courts can rule that the amendment has been interpreted wrong.

Yep. Which it has.

 

[scruffy]

If illegals aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, then we can’t prosecute them for crimes committed in this country.

We can DEPORT them, you idiot.

If we can “reinterpret” anything we want any way we want, then there’s no point in having laws.

 

[Moonglow]

lol

I don't think you'll sell that one.

I don't have to it has already been proven.

 

[AZrailwhale]

An amendment that will NEVER pass in blue states is useless.

Three years ago I would have agreed with you. Now blue states are being bankrupted by the massive wave of illegals and faux asylum seekers the Biden\Harris Administration allowed unchecked into the country. I think the taxpayers in those blue states just might have changed their minds.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Double down on ignorance. The money spent on those were people applying to asylum. A legal status.

The vast majority, probably ninety five percent or more, of those faux-asylum seekers don't qualify AND KNOW IT. They are being told by the Cartels and NGOs in Mexico to apply for asylum to bypass the immigration system. I doubt if even one percent of them bother to show up for their asylum hearings in the next eight to ten years.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Maybe so, but legislation cannot cure it and neither can an EO.

I think there is needs to be a discussion of the term "jurisdiction"

In the debates about the 14th amendment, this was said:

*
Simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that
every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to
their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of
the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the
United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the
United States, but will include every other class of person.*

Now BRC proponents would say that the list of qualifiers was intended to mean it only applied to diplomats, which, they could have more easily clarified it by simply saying "everyone born in the United States it a citizen except the children of foreign diplomats" . That would have been much easier to understand.
BRC opponents say the list was disqualifying;

In other words, proponents read it as; "
This will not, of course, include persons born in the
United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the
United States, but will include every other class of person, meaning foreigners or aliens...who belong to the families of...

The other side reads it as;

It shall not include:

1) foreigners
2)aliens
3)or people who belong to families of ambassadors....
4) but will include everyone else.

What's the point of creating a sovereign nation, citizenship,and borders if everyone could so easily bypass all of it? By allowing anyone and everyone into the country this way, what is the point of citizenship? If our rights,laws, and benefits apply to everyone who can illegally cross our borders, then why even have citizenship at all?

 

[AZrailwhale]

It's the 14th amendment - a constitutional right bestowed on every person born here. Just like owning a gun is a constitutional right, the 2nd amendment.

Here's the part that Trump is now attacking rather than defending:



The president has sworn (we all saw him) to defend the constitution not attack it.

Which you guys on the left attack every day.

 

[johnwk]

Except that illegal aliens owe allegiance to their home countries. That can be shown by foreign citizens who acted as spies or returned to their home countries to serve against the USA in wars. The case is simple, if you are a citizen of a country you "owe allegiance" to that country. Illegal immigrants, faux asylum seekers and actual asylum seekers are never forced to renounce their citizenship in their home countries unless they apply for US citizenship.

That is correct! And a child born to a foreign national while on American soil legally assumes the citizenship of their parent

 

[pknopp]

The vast majority, probably ninety five percent or more, of those faux-asylum seekers don't qualify AND KNOW IT.

True or not, they had legal status.

They are being told by the Cartels and NGOs in Mexico to apply for asylum to bypass the immigration system. I doubt if even one percent of them bother to show up for their asylum hearings in the next eight to ten years.

Maybe not but has nothing to do with what I've stated. Illegals do not qualify for housing assistance.

 

[johnwk]

It might not hold up Constitutionally but it's a step in the right direction.

Why do you say it might not hold up constitutionally?

Only Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is granted power to ". . . enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

To date there is no statute, or any Supreme Court ruling, confirming the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

It is only current unwritten “policy” which recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Our president, under Article 2 of our Constitution is granted administrative power, involving policy making.



Trump changed existing and unwritten “policy” recognizing citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrants while on American soil. They are no longer recognized as citizens under Trump's new policy.

 

[80zephyr]

The Constitution was not changed. The First Amendment stood. What changed was the introduction of non-Judeo-Christian religions into the public schools.

What changed was the interpretation. We went from "freedom of religion" to freedom from religion.

 

[pknopp]

Why do you say it might not hold up constitutionally?

Only Congress under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is granted power to ". . . enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

To date there is no statute, or any Supreme Court ruling, confirming the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

It is only current unwritten “policy” which recognizes the offspring born to an illegal entrant foreign national on American soil as a citizen of the United States upon birth.

Our president, under Article 2 of our Constitution is granted administrative power, involving policy making.



Trump changed existing and unwritten “policy” recognizing citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrants while on American soil. They are no longer recognized as citizens under Trump's new policy.

Yes they are. And the Supreme Court ruling on this was posted previously in this thread.

 

[80zephyr]

They'll toss it back because it says what it says just as the 2nd amendment says what it says.

The amendment is ambiguous. And there are records showing the original drafters of the amendment did not mean it to include the foreign born.

 

[johnwk]

The problem is the statement was contained in the amendment and requires no clarification, and it was defined in the court ruling. If we want to change the amendment, let's do it the right way.

When was our Supreme Court asked to determine if a child born to an illegal entrant foreign national while on America soil is granted birthright citizenship?

 

[pknopp]

The amendment is ambiguous. And there are records showing the original drafters of the amendment did not mean it to include the foreign born.

No there isn't.

 

[80zephyr]

Then ******* ASK SCOTUS and wait for their answer before creating all the chaos and complications for every county in the United ******* States which is just a total waste of time and energy of thousands of people, by a president who claims to care about efficiency.

Trump's just a trouble maker, the most inefficient mother ****** I've ever seen leading a country.

The best way for the SCOTUS to get involved is to do it like Trump is doing it. Might have to wait for years otherwise.

 

[80zephyr]

No there isn't.

The proof is in this very thread. That you don't want to believe does not change its existence.

 

[pknopp]

The proof is in this very thread. That you don't want to believe does not change its existence.

It doesn't exist.

 

[johnwk]

No there isn't.

Stop lying. The legislative intent was documented and posted HERE Stop making shit up.