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

[cnm]

Meaning, a baby born to foreigner parents would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but of the country to which their parents belonged to.

If the US can enforce its laws on those parents and that baby while they are in the US, those people are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

This rightard bullshit is hilarious. Fascists in the Federalist Society have been having wet dreams over that one for years.

 

[SweetTea]

So much for the Constitution and Trump.

This was an amendment to the Constitution that was impmented for a specific purpose that did not include people legally or illegally crossing our borders and having babies that are citizens. Why are Democrats in favor of interpreting the 14th in such a way that harms the US? Weird.

 

[SweetTea]

If the US can enforce its laws on those parents and that baby while they are in the US, those people are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

This rightard bullshit is hilarious. Fascists in the Federalist Society have been having wet dreams over that one for years.

Again, why would you be in favor of such an interpretation? How does it benefit the US?

 

[Moonglow]

This was an amendment to the Constitution that was impmented for a specific purpose that did not include people legally or illegally crossing our borders and having babies that are citizens. Why are Democrats in favor of interpreting the 14th in such a way that harms the US? Weird.

The Equal Protection Clause claims that you are wrong...

 

[pknopp]

This was an amendment to the Constitution that was impmented for a specific purpose that did not include people legally or illegally crossing our borders and having babies that are citizens. Why are Democrats in favor of interpreting the 14th in such a way that harms the US? Weird.

I'm not a Democrat but I have no idea how the idea of someone who is born in the US is a US citizen harms the US. Especially from those allowing a South African run the country.

 

[Moonglow]

Again, why would you be in favor of such an interpretation? How does it benefit the US?

It's not the issue of whether it is right or wrong it is a matter of law, Constitutional Law...Not a human that can be tossed back and forth between humans to see who cares for it.

 

[SweetTea]

The Equal Protection Clause claims that you are wrong...

Again, why do you people want so much for birthright citzenship to remain the law of the land? The 2nd Amendment has different interpretations as well. Democrats have a way of interpreting laws in a way that is detrimental to our country. It is almost as if you want to see the US fail. Weird.

 

[Moonglow]

Again, why do you people want so much for birthright citzenship to remain the law of the land? The 2nd Amendment has different interpretations as well. Democrats have a way of interpreting laws in a way that is detrimental to our country. It is almost as if you want to see the US fail. Weird.

Why? Because it is law if you don't like it change the law lawfully and stop trying to kill it via political assasination.

 

[SweetTea]

I'm not a Democrat but I have no idea how the idea of someone who is born in the US is a US citizen harms the US. Especially from those allowing a South African run the country.

You don’t see how it harms our country when pregnant women can come to the US, even legally, and have a baby that is a US citizen that is now dependent on the US government?

 

[pknopp]

You don’t see how it harms our country when pregnant women can come to the US, even legally, and have a baby that is a US citizen that is now dependent on the US government?

Who says they are dependent on the government? Some qualify for some small amounts of aide but that is a far cry from "dependent on the government" so....................................

 

[SweetTea]

Why? Because it is law if you don't like it change the law lawfully and stop trying to kill it via assignation.

I am talking about the interpretation of the law. For example, you likely read the 2nd Amendment to read that guns are only meant for those in a well regulated militia. Republicans read it differently and the amendment is currently applied as we interpret it. In the case of the 14th, why would you choose to interpret the law in a way that is detrimental to the US? We all know the intent of the 14th, but for some reason Democrats choose to ignore the intent. I don’t understand that.

 

[Moonglow]

I am talking about the interpretation of the law. For example, you likely read the 2nd Amendment to read that guns are only meant for those in a well regulated militia. Republicans read it differently and the amendment is currently applied as we interpret it. In the case of the 14th, why would you choose to interpret the law in a way that is detrimental to the US? We all know the intent of the 14th, but for some reason Democrats choose to ignore the intent. I don’t understand that.

Where do you not see in plain English the intent of the law not allowing ALL people to be subject to the law of the USA?


AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[SweetTea]

Who says they are dependent on the government? Some qualify for some small amounts of aide but that is a far cry from "dependent on the government" so....................................

The mom and the child get benefits. You don’t think illegals cross the border to take advantage of this? They also don’t pay for their hospital bill. You guys don’t think things through.

 

[Marener]

Again, why would you be in favor of such an interpretation? How does it benefit the US

Words have meaning. Without that, nothing matters anymore. We don’t have a government of laws.

 

[SweetTea]

Conjectures have meanings.

Democrats don’t want the US to flourish. That is rather obvious.

 

[cnm]

Why are Democrats in favor of interpreting the 14th in such a way that harms the US? Weird

Yeah, going on the simple text of the Constitution seems weird to Republicans. What's the point of having words if you can't make them mean what you want?

 

[pknopp]

The mom and the child get benefits.

No they don't.

You don’t think illegals cross the border to take advantage of this? They also don’t pay for their hospital bill. You guys don’t think things through.

Fix the hospital thing. Low income workers simply can't afford needed medical attention.

 

[cnm]

Republicans read it differently

Republicans on the USSC couldn't find the militia clause at all, let alone reading it differently.

 

[SweetTea]

Words have meaning. Without that, nothing matters anymore. We don’t have a government of laws.

Right, but laws are open to interpretation. The Supreme Court should take up the case and interpret the 14th, specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction”. The intent was to exclude certain groups, including foreign diplomats. Visitors, illegal or not, should fall into those exclusions.

 

[SweetTea]

Republicans on the USSC couldn't find the militia clause at all, let alone reading it differently.

My point is that Democrats are always on the wrong side of the argument, unless their intent is to destroy the US. Years of indoctrination has created a few generations of US haters. All part of our enemies long term strategy to destroy us from within.