HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

[Flash]

There is no such thing as an 'alternative fact'. Learn what a 'fact' is.

Kelly Ann Conway says there are alternative facts. I don't know what else to call your posts since they are not real facts. I guess we can just call them lies or mistaken assumptions about constitutional law.

 

[kudzu]

No, it hasn't.

Why is federal law changing? Does Congress have legislation revoking birthright citizenship that has some remote change of passage? Could you give us a link to this legislation and whatever legislation is changing the standard birth certificate form? Or, do we find this information the same place as the imaginary JFK executive order.

You are correct, federal courts don't sue. It was a group of parents who sued and the state had to settle.

If the children of those illegal aliens weren't citizens how are they getting that government welfare the state must provide?[/QUOTE]



Yeah, imaginary JFK executive order. ... what was that they are claiming?

 

[Flash]

Yeah, imaginary JFK executive order. ... what was that they are claiming?

According to Into the Night the 14th Amendment did not establish birthright citizenship--it was an executive order by JFK. But I can find no reference to such an EO and Into the Night refuses to provide any sources. He is claiming all those children of non-citizens born in the U. S. are not citizens despite their birth certificates establishing their citizenship.

 

[kudzu]

According to Into the Night the 14th Amendment did not establish birthright citizenship--it was an executive order by JFK. But I can find no reference to such an EO and Into the Night refuses to provide any sources. He is claiming all those children of non-citizens born in the U. S. are not citizens despite their birth certificates establishing their citizenship.

Oh .. well that's nonsense.

Birthright citizenship is established in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause was interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1898 to mean that citizenship could not be denied to any person born in the United States.

 

[kudzu]

citizenship could not be denied to any person born in the United States; LAWFULLY is where everything the hybridized supertraitor [barack Hussein marshall davis] unlawfully decreed is annulled. your lord barack and you damned fools created this crisis and you will eventually reap the whirlwind. #DEATHTOTHEDEEPSTATE!

Obama wasn't around in 1898, jackass.

There was a change to immigration law during the Kennedy years.. Had something to do with European quotas.

Yeah.. here is is.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

 

[kudzu]

this invasion from the socialist south americans was not around in 1898 either, apostate, domestic enemy. you and barack created this invasion and all your blabbering will not release you from the responsibility of your treasons. the time of trickery is over. you are guilty and you know not what you have done.

Are you off your meds or drunk or what? Birthright citizenship hasn't changed at all since 1898.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Obama wasn't around in 1898, jackass.

There was a change to immigration law during the Kennedy years.. Had something to do with European quotas.

Yeah.. here is is.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

No use arguing over legal matters, c’mon, you saw the Bart O’Kananaugh episode. Don needs a “strength” episode now to offset his cucking to MBS so spectacularly.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

this invasion from the socialist south americans was not around in 1898 either, apostate, domestic enemy. you and barack created this invasion and all your blabbering will not release you from the responsibility of your treasons. the time of trickery is over. you are guilty and you know not what you have done. I have wasted too much energy on you. you suck.

Blowback from our endless interventions down there. American corporate statists want that too.

 

[kudzu]

No use arguing over legal matters, c’mon, you saw the Bart O’Kananaugh episode. Don needs a “strength” episode now to offset his cucking to MBS so spectacularly.

I think Into the Night was talking about this below and just got confused.. They have screwed up the meaning of jurisdiction too. How do Americans get so dumb?

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

 

[kudzu]

constitutional law is based upon lawfulness. barack Hussein marshall davis tried to end all constitutional lawfulness and you are complicit in the treasons of the damned. all of what is happening is a result of your attempted end of constitutional law and order. you are guilty of high treason and sentenced and execution is pending. sleep on that, punk. you will not understand until you wake up in hell.

You are either crazy or one of the most ignorant posters on this board.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Kelly Ann Conway says there are alternative facts. I don't know what else to call your posts since they are not real facts. I guess we can just call them lies or mistaken assumptions about constitutional law.

Well that was what Kelly Ann was pushing, nothing means anything, and here we are.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

I think Into the Night was talking about this below and just got confused.. They have screwed up the meaning of jurisdiction too. How do Americans get so dumb?

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

I was being sarcastic, kinda, the reality is becoming it won’t matter soon. What’s actually the truth.

 

[Flash]

I was being sarcastic, kinda, the reality is becoming it won’t matter soon. What’s actually the truth.

I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. We will still have birthright citizenship. There may be some attempt to exempt illegal immigrants from that status, but it is very unlikely to pass although it probably has widespread support among the public.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You are either crazy or one of the most ignorant posters on this board.

If you call for a vote...please include the option "both."

 

[Flash]

Nope. That is violation of the 14th amendment.

If we do not have birthright citizenship, why does Trump want to issue an executive order ending it?

 

[rjhenn]

Obama wasn't around in 1898, jackass.

There was a change to immigration law during the Kennedy years.. Had something to do with European quotas.

Yeah.. here is is.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia


The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, enacted June 30, 1968), also known as the Hart–Celler Act, changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act of 1921.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

Hart–Celler doesn't appear to have anything to do with citizenship.

 

[rjhenn]

You are either crazy or one of the most ignorant posters on this board.

No"or" about it. And crazy and ignorant are both pervasive here.

 

[kudzu]

Hart–Celler doesn't appear to have anything to do with citizenship.

Right.. It has to do with immigration.. Into the Night has already abandoned ship.

 

[CFM]

I accept the definition, the Supreme Court does not. Even Scalia has ruled "shall" means "may" in some cases.

You mean Article V cases? You said none have occurred yet have determined how the word would apply in one of them.

 

[kudzu]

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

Foreign governments have NO JURISDICTION over anyone on US soil.