HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
You are so effing ignorant.. Read Title 8 US code 1401.. It covers native Americans.
I have never seen such lies and fear mongering by any politician in my lifetime and you turn yourself into a pretzel to back him.
This is going to end badly.
After Trump gets to appoint a 3rd Justice when Ginsburg finally keels over, you lefties won't be able to see the tunnel, much less the light at the end of it, when it comes to having your bullshit upheld by the Court.
If you post a paragraph-length quotation with URL I'll consider it.
But you haven't asserted what it is you allege I'm "so effing ignorant" of. Are you one of the troglodytes that feels so intrinsically inferior that you try to lift yourself up by putting others down?
That's nice.
Which politician?
Please quote me backing a lying, fear-mongering politician.
You quoted my post, as if to imply your posted comment was in reply to mine. But yours is a non-sequitur.
That's nice too. Please be sure to let us all know:
a) what it is, &
b) when it starts.
Thanks.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Bullshit! Even Judge Kavanaugh is bound by the Constitution in all of his decisions. He is not up there to help Donald Trump break the law or violate the Constitution.
Donald Duck Fuck is about a week from becoming the Donald Lame Duck! And he is about a month out from becoming Duck Soup! BLAHAHAHAHA!
The writers of the 14th realized the concepts they were enshrining in the Constitution were not case specific, but properly for a Constitution, were broad concepts.. Guiding principals that were designed to fit more than the present situation. It says what it says with little room for interpretation, Id say less room than the 2nd Amendment. To end birth right citizenship, you would need to Amend.
They broke a law as soon as they crossed the border: illegal immigration.
you are just a simpleton. Crossing our border does not mean they broke a law. That would happen when they over stay their visa.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the ratification process of all the colonies having their votes represented made that document written by we the people. end of story. anything else is a fabricated delusion from people intent on subverting it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
aren't you a huge supporter of limited rights and reasonable regulations?
Not sure what you are asking, I understand that rights are balanced when they conflict with each other, and that regulations must be reasonable.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
Thanks for another example of your lack of understanding. You're a great standard bearer for the ignorant liberals, Andrew.
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Where does the constitution say who has authority to interpret the constitution?? Answer - it doesn't directly say, so by the tenth amendment that power rests with the states or the people.
Even Fox's "Judge" Nappy knows you people are idiots and do not understand basic civics.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge...s-to-desperate-fox-and-friends-hosts?ref=home
https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge...s-to-desperate-fox-and-friends-hosts?ref=home
We both know the laughing was at your grade school constitutional opinions.
I'm still looking for someone you actually are smarter than. There are a few...but they are among your fellow American conservatives...and they really shouldn't count.
Pointing out that they are not very bright is a redundancy...once you've mentioned that they are American conservatives.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then 'birthright' citizenship can be reasonably regulated, can't it.
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
Oct 30th, 2018 3 min read
Key Takeaways
1. Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
2. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
3. Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.
The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment
Oct 30th, 2018 3 min read
Key Takeaways
1. Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
2. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
3. Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.
The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment