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

[el midgetron]

Spoken like a forlorn child, bereft of his imagined privilege.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Fake news...

"Then, yesterday, a more significant shoe dropped. The Wall Street Journal reported that the American Civil Liberties Union “will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms.” In other words, the group’s anti-gun stance is now directly influencing its First Amendment advocacy. It’s executive director, Anthony Romero, told the Journal that the decision “was in keeping with a 2015 policy adopted by the ACLU’s national board in support of ‘reasonable’ firearm regulation.”

After Charlottesville, the First and Second Amendments Are Under Fire | National Review

The alt-right hates American traditions and American liberties. Why grant it the slightest influence over American life?

www.nationalreview.com

THIS is what you're up in arms about! (no pun intended). You want them to spend equal time & resources to protect members of a hate group that also want to espouses their hate while armed?

The ACLU has defended the Ku Klux Klan on occasion when their rights were being violated, yet this one particular area does not NEGATE the work they do on behalf of other Americans and it's very disingenuous of you to suggest that it does:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a long-standing history of defending the constitutional rights of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or affiliations. Below are instances where the ACLU has defended:​

1. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK):​

• Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): The ACLU defended a Ku Klux Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, who was convicted under Ohio's criminal syndicalism law for advocating violence during a rally. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg, establishing the "imminent lawless action" test, which protects speech unless it is directed to inciting imminent unlawful action and is likely to produce such action.
  Foundation for Economic Education
  
• Cape Girardeau, Missouri (2012): The ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Cape Girardeau on behalf of the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. The lawsuit challenged the city's ordinance that prohibited the distribution of leaflets on parked cars, arguing it violated the KKK's free speech rights.
  American Civil Liberties Union
  

2. Individuals Whose Gun Rights Have Been Violated:​

• National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Cuomo (2018): The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the NRA in a lawsuit against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The case involved allegations that the state's pressure on financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA violated the organization's First Amendment rights. The ACLU emphasized that while it often opposes the NRA's policy positions, it supports the protection of free speech rights for all groups.
  
  American Civil Liberties Union​

While the ACLU has defended the First Amendment rights of gun owners and organizations, it maintains a nuanced position on the Second Amendment. The organization acknowledges an individual's right to bear arms but supports reasonable regulations to promote public safety. The ACLU has stated that the Second Amendment permits gun regulation and does not oppose gun control laws that are fair, effective, and not based on prejudice or stereotype.​

American Civil Liberties Union​

​

These instances illustrate the ACLU's commitment to defending civil liberties, even for groups or individuals whose views or actions may be controversial or unpopular.​

Sources

​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I went to the ACLU once complaining about (me and everyone) being forced to have smartmeters installed on my house where the utility (or others) can spy on me, track my activity, even tell when I'm not home, and the ACLU wrote back that they could not be bothered. Not interested.

And which right of yours did you tell them was being violated? The 4th Amendment?

I'm not attacking your comment, I'm just trying to show you how they look at things. I'm not an attorney but I would imagine that what the utility company is doing or has done is not a violation of the 4th unless the devices were install specifically to gather evidence on you for use in a case.

 

[Missourian]

THIS is what you're up in arms about! (no pun intended). You want them to spend equal time & resources to protect members of a hate group that also want to espouses their hate while armed?

Yep.

One example of many.

Call me old-fashioned...

 

[Doc7505]

I was speaking in general about what the ACLU does.

And I'm aware that the 14th amendment was ratified to cover the children of former slaves. The fact that it is "exploited" to include a group of people that it was never intended to include is a perfect example of one of the unintended consequences that resulted due to supremacist policies and laws that were created in order to disadvantage people of African descent.

The 14th amendment would never have had to be ratified but for the continued racism against people of African descent.

~~~~~~
Indeed, Democrats fought 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments tooth and nail to the end.

"Stated as such, it's broadly accurate. In 1864, the 13th Amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 38 to 6 (only 8 Democrats voted yes). It didn't pass the House until 1865, by a final vote of 119 to 56 (15 Democrats and all 86 Republicans voted yes; 50 Democrats voted no; remaining votes were Union and Unconditional Union). In 1866, the Senate's version of the 14th Amendment, having been amended and passed by a vote of 33 to 11, was sent for a final vote by the House, which passed it in a vote of 120 to 32/ The 32 Nay's were all Democrat".
During the Reconstruction era, radical Republicans passed legislation securing the rights of Black Americans, including voting rights. Democrats opposed these efforts at every turn. According to the 2021 paper, "White Supremacy, Terrorism, and the Failure of Reconstruction in the United States," by Daniel Byman:
Source:

Did Dems Oppose 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments That Gave Freedom, Voting Rights to Slaves?

It's all but impossible to capture the complexities of history in a meme.

www.snopes.com

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Fake news...

"Then, yesterday, a more significant shoe dropped. The Wall Street Journal reported that the American Civil Liberties Union “will no longer defend hate groups seeking to march with firearms.” In other words, the group’s anti-gun stance is now directly influencing its First Amendment advocacy. It’s executive director, Anthony Romero, told the Journal that the decision “was in keeping with a 2015 policy adopted by the ACLU’s national board in support of ‘reasonable’ firearm regulation.”

After Charlottesville, the First and Second Amendments Are Under Fire | National Review

The alt-right hates American traditions and American liberties. Why grant it the slightest influence over American life?

www.nationalreview.com

First of all, what I posted is not classified as "news". It's first-hand knowledge that I have regarding a specific organization.

And just because the ACLU has restrictions on the cases they take and pursue doesn't mean that they don't do exactly what I've stated they do.

You not understanding the difference between all, most & some doesn't make what I posted "fake" let alone "fake news".

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

... and unfortunately, on that point he will lose and be forced to seek a constitutional amendment.

I want to know how he thinks this can be enforced. I am extremely curious.

I have suspected for a while that he knows this can't be done, at least not via executive order but that he's counting on his supporters to not know that.

This way, when the EO doesn't work he can point to everyone else (Democrats, leftist, etc.) and blame it on them as to why things haven't changed.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[konradv]

And he is quite correct.

Of course, swine from the ACLU et al. will take it to court.

We demand the end of this anomaly of birthright citizenship. It was never an intended consequence of the 14th Amendment.

Then amend the amendment. EOs don’t countermand the Constitution.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have suspected for a while that he knows this can't be done, at least not via executive order but that he's counting on his supporters to not know that.

This way, when the EO doesn't work he can point to everyone else (Democrats, leftist, etc.) and blame it on them as to why things haven't changed.

I suspect he knows it will be challenged and he wants a SCOTUS ruling in it.

 

[johnwk]

... and unfortunately, on that point he will lose and be forced to seek a constitutional amendment.

I want to know how he thinks this can be enforced. I am extremely curious.

He can do it by sticking to the facts:
.
FACT: According to those who framed our Constitution and helped to ratify it, the wording in the Fourteenth Amendment “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof …” is a qualifier which, by documented legislative intent, excludes from the privilege of United States citizenship the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. SOURCE

FACT: Congress has not exercised its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, authority to adopt appropriate legislation granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

FACT: “Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE

FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation involving Indians, who were then subject to a foreign power, extending United States birth right citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924


FACT: To date there is no Supreme Court case which took up the question and confirmed a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

FACT: Considering there is no federal statute, nor a Supreme Court case confirming a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizenship upon birth, it is mere current unwritten policy which does so.

FACT: The good news is, Trump can change current federal unwritten policy with a stroke of his pen.

 

[scruffy]

I don't think you can change the constitution by EO.

Why not? Biden just did.

 

[Missourian]

First of all, what I posted is not classified as "news". It's first-hand knowledge that I have regarding a specific organization.

And just because the ACLU has restrictions on the cases they take and pursue doesn't mean that they don't do exactly what I've stated they do.

You not understanding the difference between all, most & some doesn't make what I posted "fake" let alone "fake news".

It's fake news Mariyam.

7 times out of 10 I agree with you...which is pretty good considering our differences...but the ACLU has lost it's path.

I'm not saying it's not understandable... if they piss off their donors, they don't get the big bucks. But in the process they have compromised their principles.

Free speech is the defense of ALL legal speech. Like the criminal defense attorney that must present the best possible defense of the scum of the Earth. That's the standard. Defending speech you would spend a lifetime opposing.

We had George Floyd protests here.

I didn't agree with them.

But I would have physically fought to allow them.

Anything else falls short.

 

[johnwk]

In regard to Trump keeping his promise to end the current policy of anchor baby birthright citizenship . . .

 

[Toro]

It's settled law. It will get killed in the courts.

 

[X.Onasis]

In regard to Trump keeping his promise to end the current policy of anchor baby birthright citizenship . . .


View attachment 1068522

"**** the Constitution" seems like a bad way to start defending it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I was speaking in general about what the ACLU does.

And I'm aware that the 14th amendment was ratified to cover the children of former slaves. The fact that it is "exploited" to include a group of people that it was never intended to include is a perfect example of one of the unintended consequences that resulted due to supremacist policies and laws that were created in order to disadvantage people of African descent.

The 14th amendment would never have had to be ratified but for the continued racism against people of African descent.

Long time ago. Get over it. You can’t get over it because it was long before your time and had no bearing on your situation.
Why do you defend a twisting of law that allows the culture and country to be overrun? (rhetorical question)

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It's fake news Mariyam.

7 times out of 10 I agree with you...which is pretty good considering our differences...but the ACLU has lost it's path.

I'm not saying it's not understandable... if they piss off their donors, they don't get the big bucks. But in the process they have compromised their principles.

Free speech is the defense of ALL legal speech. Like the criminal defense attorney that must present the best possible defense of the scum of the Earth. That's the standard. Defending speech you would spend a lifetime opposing.

We had George Floyd protests here.

I didn't agree with them.

But I would have physically fought to allow them.

Anything else falls short.

Understood, but I don't believe we're as far apart on the issues of the 2nd amendment as you might believe. I've actually written about the ACLU's stance on the 2nd Amendment and why they have taken the position that they have but I no longer have access to those postings as the website is now defunct.

I also have supported several organizations that fight for our 2nd amendment rights in addition to my support of the ACLU - organizations such as the Second Amendment Foundation, The Right To Keep & Bear Arms, both Washington state organizations that have won cases nationally. I am also a lifetime member of Gun Owners of America.

But in summary, because they're attorneys, they tend to take cases which 1) will help the most people in the event that they prevail, as well as 2) those cases that they feel they can win (they're attorneys, they would not select cases that they know are unwinnable I would imagine from what I know of them). So what this means is that it's only been since the landmark SCOTUS ruling in D.C. versus Heller which ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual's right to keep & bear arms (as opposed to this amendment apply only to the state's right) and the McDonald v Chicago ruling that the ACLU has been more active in taking cases which protect the rights of the people to keep & bear arms, including in their homes for protection:

This case challenged Chicago's handgun ban, which effectively prohibited most residents from possessing firearms in their homes. Otis McDonald, a Chicago resident, argued that the city's law violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.​

Key Issue:​

The central question was whether the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause or Privileges and Immunities Clause. In other words, could state and local governments restrict gun ownership in ways that the federal government could not?​

​

Supreme Court Decision:​

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the right to keep and bear arms is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Therefore, Chicago’s handgun ban was unconstitutional.​

​

Significance:​

• Incorporation of the Second Amendment: This case incorporated the Second Amendment, making it applicable to the states. Before this ruling, the Bill of Rights primarily restricted only the federal government.
• Broader Implications: McDonald v. Chicago reinforced and expanded the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized in Heller, ensuring that states and municipalities must also respect this constitutional right.

Together, Heller and McDonald form the foundation of modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.​

How this impacted the ACLU:

The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Supreme Court rulings reshaped Second Amendment jurisprudence, affirming the right to individual gun ownership for self-defense and incorporating this right to apply to state and local governments. These decisions had significant implications for organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which historically approached Second Amendment cases cautiously and often supported reasonable gun control measures.

Pre-Heller/McDonald ACLU Stance:​

Before these rulings, the ACLU took a narrow view of the Second Amendment, interpreting it primarily as protecting the collective right to bear arms in the context of a "well-regulated militia," as opposed to an individual's right to own firearms. This interpretation aligned with many lower court rulings that upheld restrictive gun control laws, making it less likely for the ACLU to take up cases on behalf of individuals claiming violations of their Second Amendment rights.

How Heller and McDonald Changed the Landscape:​

1. Recognition of Individual Rights:
   • The Heller decision established that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home. This clarified a previously contentious issue, providing a clear legal basis for individuals to challenge gun control laws.
   • McDonald extended this protection to state and local governments, creating a nationwide standard for Second Amendment rights.
2. Constitutional Framework for Gun Rights:
   • The rulings provided a robust constitutional framework for arguing that certain laws restricting firearm ownership violated fundamental individual rights. This opened the door for civil liberties organizations, like the ACLU, to re-evaluate their stance on defending individuals whose Second Amendment rights had been infringed.
3. Alignment with Broader Civil Liberties Goals:
   • The ACLU's core mission is to protect constitutional rights for all individuals, even in contentious or politically divisive contexts. After Heller and McDonald, denying legal assistance to individuals whose Second Amendment rights were violated became more difficult to reconcile with this mission. These rulings ensured that the Second Amendment was on par with other fundamental rights like free speech or due process, areas where the ACLU is traditionally active.

Notable Shifts in ACLU Advocacy:​

• Broader Representation:The ACLU began supporting cases where individuals faced violations of their newly affirmed Second Amendment rights. While the organization remains cautious about supporting unrestricted gun ownership, it has intervened in cases involving clear overreach, such as:
  • Unjust denial of firearm ownership based on discriminatory practices.
  • Overbroad government policies that infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners.
• First Amendment Parallels: In cases like National Rifle Association (NRA) v. Cuomo (2018), the ACLU filed an amicus brief defending the NRA's First Amendment rights, even though the case was related to firearms. This highlighted the organization's willingness to advocate for groups or individuals with whom they might not align politically, provided there were broader constitutional implications.

Conclusion:​

The Heller and McDonald rulings fundamentally altered the legal landscape by framing the Second Amendment as a personal, enforceable right. This shift made it easier for the ACLU to engage in cases defending gun rights when they intersected with broader civil liberties concerns, such as due process, equal protection, or freedom from government overreach. While the ACLU continues to support reasonable gun control measures, these rulings provided the constitutional clarity needed for the organization to actively defend individuals whose Second Amendment rights are clearly violated.

 

[johnwk]

It's settled law. It will get killed in the courts.

.
Let us stick to documented facts.


FACT: According to those who framed our Constitution and helped to ratify it, the wording in the Fourteenth Amendment “… and subject to the jurisdiction thereof …” is a qualifier which, by documented legislative intent, excludes from the privilege of United States citizenship the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. SOURCE

FACT: Congress has not exercised its Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, authority to adopt appropriate legislation granting citizenship to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil.

FACT: “Without the enforcement clause, the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment would be moot. This clause gives Congress the power to pass legislation with the goal of enforcing the Amendment. As a result, Congress has used this clause to ensure all Americans enjoy the rights outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment.” SOURCE

FACT: In 1924, Congress exercised its authority and adopted appropriate legislation involving Indians, who were then subject to a foreign power, extending United States birth right citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924


FACT: To date there is no Supreme Court case which took up the question and confirmed a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is granted U.S. citizenship upon birth.

FACT: Considering there is no federal statute, nor a Supreme Court case confirming a child born on American soil to an illegal entrant foreign national is a U.S. citizenship upon birth, it is mere current unwritten policy which does so.

FACT: The good news is, Trump can change current federal unwritten policy with a stroke of his pen.

 

[Mac-7]

It will certainly by challenged in the courts and probably be delayed for years

But it puts the ball in the globalist court and is desperately needed

So way to go Trump