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

[JoeB131]

Why can't you look at what the writers intended?

Because what they intended didn't matter, only what they wrote.

I'd be happy to go back to 1870 immigration and naturalization laws, but I don't think you would.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because what they intended didn't matter, only what they wrote.

I'd be happy to go back to 1870 immigration and naturalization laws, but I don't think you would.

OK, so go ahead and bring up the 1870 immigration laws. If you are going to go the "it's in what they wrote" avenue, then I can say whatever you are about to post, was also not in what they wrote.

If you want to bring up supporting documents for your argument that were NOT included in the 14A, then i will bring up the debates on this very topic, which were also not physically written into the 14A

Again, for clarity sake:

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.

you say there is nothing in there about aliens, and I say there is nothing in there about natives. You say intent doesn't matter, I say, in order to determine what they wanted the whole document to be about, intent is key. Without intent, it leaves the document to be wide open for interpretation by many different people, which means the meaning of the document can change over time, and it is that change that leads us to where we are today.

 

[JoeB131]

OK, so go ahead and bring up the 1870 immigration laws. If you are going to go the "it's in what they wrote" avenue, then I can say whatever you are about to post, was also not in what they wrote.

If you want to bring up supporting documents for your argument that were NOT included in the 14A, then i will bring up the debates on this very topic, which were also not physically written into the 14A

Again, for clarity sake:



you say there is nothing in there about aliens, and I say there is nothing in there about natives. You say intent doesn't matter, I say, in order to determine what they wanted the whole document to be about, intent is key. Without intent, it leaves the document to be wide open for interpretation by many different people, which means the meaning of the document can change over time, and it is that change that leads us to where we are today.

Because Aliens were considered subject to the laws of the United States.

Sorry, man, you can't re-interpret 150 years of established law because you don't want a Mexican moving in next door.

America has had waves of anti-immigrant hysteria, this is just the latest. And in none of those previous waves of hysteria, did anyone say, "Hey, you know those kids of aliens, they shouldn't be citizens no matter what the 14th Amendment says.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Where is that definition? Because your definition is obviously different than mine. I'm taking my definition from the people who wrote the amendment.... jurisdiction, in this case, was anyone not owing allegiance to any other country.

where are you getting your definition?

In the Amendment. Go read it again.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Where is that definition? Because your definition is obviously different than mine. I'm taking my definition from the people who wrote the amendment.... jurisdiction, in this case, was anyone not owing allegiance to any other country.

where are you getting your definition?

Diplomats, and Indians were specific cases of people who owed allegiance to foreign governments because they were not citizens of this country. Jurisdiction applied to people who were not here of their own accord. neither were subject to the jurisdiction of this nation. The word "allegiance" does not appear in the amendment, so your claim is in error. I have explained this about 10 times.

An immigrant in this country was subject to the jurisdiction of this nation because they could be punished under our laws. Even tourists traveling though this country were subject to our jurisdiction. At the time, diplomats were subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and Indians were considered members of their Indian nations. That jurisdiction was established by treaty.

 

[beagle9]

The left has made Trump a war president, and he should be on the highest alert as him and his administration are trying to clean up the disaster of the last four year's in this country here and abroad.

Take my word Trump, it's time to go to high alert until this situation is finally won and cleaned up.

Take no chances in the war that's been started with the cartels and their allies within this country.

Anyone found aiding and abedding our enemies should be immediately removed from the battlefield. If anyone aids and abeds the enemy, then they have become the enemy.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The left has made Trump a war president, and he should be on the highest alert as him and his administration are trying to clean up the disaster of the last four year's in this country here and abroad.

Take my word Trump, it's time to go to high alert until this situation is finally won and cleaned up.

Take no chances in the war that's been started with the cartels and their allies within this country.

Anyone found aiding and abedding our enemies should be immediately removed from the battlefield. If anyone aids and abeds the enemy, then they have become the enemy.

We have been doing that all along, yes. Nothing new here.

 

[beagle9]

We have been doing that all along, yes. Nothing new here.

Doing what all along ?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Doing what all along ?

Fighting to preserve facts and reason.

 

[beagle9]

Fighting to preserve facts and reason.
View attachment 1074637

Show us some reason, and we just might agree. I'm holding my breath.

 

[JoeB131]

The left has made Trump a war president, and he should be on the highest alert as him and his administration are trying to clean up the disaster of the last four year's in this country here and abroad.

Take my word Trump, it's time to go to high alert until this situation is finally won and cleaned up.

Take no chances in the war that's been started with the cartels and their allies within this country.

Anyone found aiding and abedding our enemies should be immediately removed from the battlefield. If anyone aids and abeds the enemy, then they have become the enemy.

Trump is an assclown who shouldn't be running a circus.

We are going to remember the low unemployment and relative peace of the Biden years as the good old days.

All Trump had to do is not **** things up, and he's not even going to meet that low standard

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because Aliens were considered subject to the laws of the United States.

Sorry, man, you can't re-interpret 150 years of established law because you don't want a Mexican moving in next door.

America has had waves of anti-immigrant hysteria, this is just the latest. And in none of those previous waves of hysteria, did anyone say, "Hey, you know those kids of aliens, they shouldn't be citizens no matter what the 14th Amendment says.

Because Aliens were considered subject to the laws of the United States

Where do you get that the meaning of jurisdiction, in thid instance, is talking about subject to the laws?

Jurisdiction can mean different things.

Sorry, man, you can't re-interpret 150 years of established law because you don't want a Mexican moving in next door.

Making assumptions i see. I have no issue with anyone of any nationality living next to me so, yeah, you're wrong there.


I'm not trying to reinterpret anything, I'm going off of the words of the people who wrote the amendment...you appear to be trying to reinterpret it though.

America has had waves of anti-immigrant hysteria, this is just the latest

What you dont understand is, this has nothing to do with immigration. It's about ILLEGAL immigration. Stop with the assumptions and listen to what people are telling you rather that what you want to hear.

Hey, you know those kids of aliens, they shouldn't be citizens no matter what the 14th Amendment says.

That's because, like roe, people just accepted the status quo, now people are finally starting to question.."hmm what exactly did they ACTUALLY mean when they wrote that", and just like those who allowed those things of the past to go astray, you all are doing it again by not hearing what the intent of the amendment was.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In the Amendment. Go read it again.

Show me, I've read the amendment, repeatedly, I see no definition of the words "subject to the jurisdiction"

 

[ThisIsMe]

Diplomats, and Indians were specific cases of people who owed allegiance to foreign governments because they were not citizens of this country. Jurisdiction applied to people who were not here of their own accord. neither were subject to the jurisdiction of this nation. The word "allegiance" does not appear in the amendment, so your claim is in error. I have explained this about 10 times.

An immigrant in this country was subject to the jurisdiction of this nation because they could be punished under our laws. Even tourists traveling though this country were subject to our jurisdiction. At the time, diplomats were subject to the jurisdiction of their home country and Indians were considered members of their Indian nations. That jurisdiction was established by treaty.

The word "allegiance" does not appear in the amendment, so your claim is in error. I have explained this about 10 times.

Neither do the words "diplomat" or "indian" appear in the 14th amendment. See, you are trying to interject YOUR definitions and expect me to accept them, but you reject the definitions of the people who WROTE THE AMENDMENT.

An immigrant in this country was subject to the jurisdiction of this nation because they could be punished under our laws.

That's great. "Jurisdiction" can have different meanings, and in this case, the senators who debated the amendment told you what they meant, but you just want to ignore them.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Show me, I've read the amendment, repeatedly, I see no definition of the words "subject to the jurisdiction"

No, if you are too intransigent to student the history of the amendment and want to substitute your nonsensical conclusion, you go right ahead.

You are going to be so disappointed.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, if you are too intransigent to student the history of the amendment and want to substitute your nonsensical conclusion, you go right ahead.

You are going to be so disappointed.

the problem is, I AM looking at the history of the amendment, through the words of the very people who wrote it...it is you all who are substituting.

 

[fred check]

We know that Trump et al lie every single day.

Fred Check rates this claim....

Bogus.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neither do the words "diplomat" or "indian" appear in the 14th amendment. See, you are trying to interject YOUR definitions and expect me to accept them, but you reject the definitions of the people who WROTE THE AMENDMENT.



That's great. "Jurisdiction" can have different meanings, and in this case, the senators who debated the amendment told you what they meant, but you just want to ignore them.

How could they define something that simply did not exist?

 

[JoeB131]

Where do you get that the meaning of jurisdiction, in thid instance, is talking about subject to the laws?

Jurisdiction can mean different things.

Yes, it can. But not in this context. The government has jurisdiction over people living here or even visitors. It does not have jurisdiction over foreign diplomats. It didn't have jurisdiction over Native Tribes until they finally abolished all the Indian Nations and made them all citizens to steal what little land they had left.

If you want to declare immigrants (and not just illegal immigrants) as not being under the jurisdiction of the US, then you have to treat them like foreign diplomats.

Making assumptions i see. I have no issue with anyone of any nationality living next to me so, yeah, you're wrong there.

Yet you've made throwing brown people out of the country the top priority in your life.

What you dont understand is, this has nothing to do with immigration. It's about ILLEGAL immigration. Stop with the assumptions and listen to what people are telling you rather that what you want to hear.

Except this isn't what Trump is arguing. He's arguing that ONLY American citizens can give birth to other American citizens. Shit, it's the Birther Bullshit all over again.

That's because, like roe, people just accepted the status quo, now people are finally starting to question.."hmm what exactly did they ACTUALLY mean when they wrote that", and just like those who allowed those things of the past to go astray, you all are doing it again by not hearing what the intent of the amendment was.

Overturning Roe was a complete clusterfuck, as we are seeing, but that's not the topic here.

The question is, would overturning Wong be a good idea? Most certainly not.

This article discusses proposals to end Birthright Citizenship in Canada, but most of her arguments could apply for the US as well.

Revoking birthright citizenship would affect everyone

There has been a lot of talk about getting rid of birthright citizenship in Canada and the United States. President Trump recently announced he will issue an executive order that would do away with automatic citizenship for babies born in the US. Conservative Party of Canada members passed a...

policyoptions.irpp.org

The elimination of birthright citizenship would affect not just migrants, but all of us. A citizenship application will need to be made for every person born in Canada. More tax dollars would be needed to process the applications. Clerks would suddenly have the power to make substantive and legal determinations about the status of every person that applies for citizenship. Like any administrative system, mistakes would be made. Bad or wrong decisions would be challenged in the courts at great expense to both the state and the people affected. People would struggle with the fact that they are stateless in the interim.

Undoubtedly, doing away with birthright citizenship would increase the number of stateless persons in Canada. Being stateless has serious implications. Stateless persons have difficulty accessing education, employment, health care, social services and freedom of movement. Simple things like obtaining a bank account, cell phone account or registering birth, marriage or death are complicated if not impossible. Stateless persons would be subject to arrest, detention and potential removal to places they may never have been before.
The elimination of birthright citizenship would have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable: the indigent, those with mental illness, and children who are in precarious family situations or are wards of the state. These are the people that may not have the appropriate paperwork or proof that they do qualify for citizenship or do not have support for obtaining citizenship. For example, parents (who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents) of persons seeking citizenship may have lost paperwork, may not want to cooperate, may not be in the country, or may find out they are not the biological parent of that child.

 

[ThisIsMe]

How could they define something that simply did not exist?

"Aliens" (non citizens) did exist. There may not have been any laws making them illegal, but they still existed.