HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

CFM said:
The left's argument about Trump changing the Constitution if false. He's applying it in the manner those that wrote it intended it to be applied.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.

The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
Click to expand...

trump does not get to decide what the interpretation of the law is> Its up to the Supreme Court not him.
 
CFM said:
The left's argument about Trump changing the Constitution if false. He's applying it in the manner those that wrote it intended it to be applied.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.

The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
Click to expand...

"The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."

Exactly :thumbsup:
 
Legion said:
If that's so, then you have nothing to be concerned about, do you, anchovies?
Click to expand...

No, no one does, this is just Trump's latest attempt to refocus attention on his Caravan demogoguery.

First it was the dangerous elements within, then the threat of sending soldiers, then actually sending soldiers, and now this. None of the previous efforts worked, this won't either, with domestic terrorism occurring a far off Caravan gains little traction, well, outside Fox that is
 
CFM said:
If deplorable means applying the Constitution in the manner it was intended, I'm OK with that.
Click to expand...

You are proposing ignoring clear language in the Constitution with executive order, deplorable.
 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Although Chinese were not eligible for citizenship through naturalization, their child who was born in the U. S. was a citizen.

"Three decades later, the government tried to meddle with the clause by denying citizenship to Wong Kim Ark, the child of Chinese immigrants who were themselves not eligible for citizenship. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the clause meant what it said. No matter where their parents were born, no matter what their parents’ status, American-born children are Americans. And that’s how it should be."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/
 
Stretch said:
"The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."

Exactly :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Cut the bull shit, you know nothing and Trump is going to do nothing. Its all about staring up his base with a week to go in the election. Sadly for your kind, millions have already voted
 
CFM said:
The left's argument about Trump changing the Constitution if false. He's applying it in the manner those that wrote it intended it to be applied.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.

The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
Click to expand...

You boob.. If she's in the US she is under US jurisdiction.. NO other country has jurisdiction in the US.
 
guno said:
you right wing cracka goyim are dying off and are becoming a minority, you mutants will have no say
Click to expand...

I remind u again Negro

Negros are 13 percent of the population and have been it's not growing

You lead in Abortions and murders amoung your own people!

Negros will not see 25 percent of the population in the next 100 years or so!
 
CFM said:
The left's argument about Trump changing the Constitution if false. He's applying it in the manner those that wrote it intended it to be applied.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.

The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
Click to expand...

It is idiotic to say that someone actually inside the borders of the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States.
 
Stretch said:
"The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."

Exactly :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

What is "exactly" is that this is just Trump's latest attempt to get the Nation refocused on him demogoguing this Caravan, it won't work as the early efforts didn't work, America today is more concerned on domestic terrorism

Besides, Trump echoed the same arguement all while he was campaigning for President, yet in two years he never took any effort to introduce anything legislatively to address the question. This is just another Trump move that will fizzle out by Thursday, then he'll be onto another
 
Jarod said:
It is idiotic to say that someone actually inside the borders of the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States.
Click to expand...

Of course they are under the legal jurisdiction of america but not the political jurisdiction and that is the type of jurisdiction the 14A refers to. THINK
 
lol grinds mad said:
You people at disgusting. The words of the constitution couldn't be clearer This is legally meaningless, and so contrary to the law as to be abrogation of his oath of office and grounds for impeachment. Do you honestly think any judge in America is going to hold up Trump abolishing the constitution via an EO?
Click to expand...

The USSC has *never* ruled on this issue and it's high time it did. No other country in the world allows this. Only the United States of America and that's only because it's been forced upon the country by the Federal Courts and liberal judges.

That's coming to an end, thankfully.
 
CFM said:
The left's argument about Trump changing the Constitution if false. He's applying it in the manner those that wrote it intended it to be applied.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

The Amendment's key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. When parents are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance of a child born to those parents. The completeness of their allegiance to the United States is therefore impaired, which precludes automatic citizenship.

The US Supreme Court confirmed this interpretation of citizenship over a century ago in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [112 US 94 (1884) and 83 US 36 (1873)]. In the notable 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."
Click to expand...

It is idiotic to say that someone actually inside the borders of the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States.
 
Stretch said:
One is under the jurisdiction of their citizenship.
Click to expand...

False, if our laws pertain to you and a Country can do something about it, you are under that Country's jurisdiction.

If you can be arrested for breaking a nations laws, you are under that nations jurisdiction. Simple.
 
Jarod said:
It is idiotic to say that someone actually inside the borders of the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States.
Click to expand...

Depends on the many world-wide extradition laws and agreements if that "someone" is a citizen of elsewhere.
 
We don’t need a constitutional amendment, the language of the 14th is clear - it does not apply to children of non-citizens because they are not subject to our jurisdiction/laws simply due to the fact that they are not here legally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top