Jump to content

Trump called birthright citizenship "ridiculous" and said that "it has to end."


pipedreams
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Under current policy, anyone born in the U.S. – regardless of whether they are delivered by a non-citizen or unauthorized immigrant – is considered a citizen. The interpretation has been blamed for so-called 'birth tourism' and chain migration.

Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-he-plans-to-sign-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birthright citizenship was because southern democrooks wanted freed slaves counted for population to determine the representation in the House of Representatives, but not to allow them to vote. Say for example that Georgia had a population of 5 million, but 4 million were freed slaves. The Democraps want representation for 5 million but only 1 million could vote on those same representatives. Pelosi would be speaker.

if all 5 million were citizens and voted, the representation would remain the same.....but they would be voted out of power.

the 14th amendment remedied this by making anyone born in the country a citizen with all rights to include voting rights.

 

the 14th has been bastardized by the same party more recently to admit children born of illegals. Then the chain migration starts with parents, and extended family being granted citizenship. Basically for the same reason.

 

Trump cannot change the Constitution with an EO. Go ahead and flame me, tell me I’m an idiot who doesn’t understand the Constitution (I do) a-call me anti Trump, commie, liberal, Hillary lover. Doesn’t change the fact that the President cannot order the changing of the 14th amendment even if he declares a national emergency, Martial law, holds his tongue just right on a full moon facing East and saying the magic words. He doesn’t have the power and aren’t you glad or Obama would have done away with the 2nd and most of the 1st just like you are claiming Trump can do with the 14th...

...after you’re done and calmed down...

 

he can maybe change to other crap that has been added to it through policy and regulation, court decision and past practice.   ie; Chain migration.

 

birthright citizenship cannot be changed without a Constitutional amendment any more than Prohibition could have been withdrawn by the Executive. 

But the chain migration policy is not the same and is not a Constitutionally protected issue. Case law is not the Constitution.

 

will he? It depends. Is he trying to fire up the base, or actually solve an issue. 

How much faith in him do you have?

Watch, follow through, and remember what happens, not what is said.

 

.

Edited by Dric902
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SevenSixtyTwo said:

Maybe President Trump should call it "Common Sense Imigration Laws" so the Democrats can get on board or drop that stupid ****. If the 2nd Amendment can be butchered, the 14th can be clarified.

It has been abused and misused as a justification for an agenda 

.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rather than demonizing the president or caricaturing his position, let’s have a substantive debate.

There are as many as 400,000 children born every year who the hardworking U.S. taxpayers have to educate, and for whom they provide health care and food stamps. The Center estimates that the annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers of children born to illegal immigrants is a staggering $2.4 billion.

Do you think our veterans, homeless and inner-city school children could use that money?"

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/laura-ingraham-why-are-dems-so-afraid-of-a-conversation-about-birthright-citizenship

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I forgot this part.

"Birth tourism has become big business in the U.S., attracting visitors from China, Taiwan, Mexico and Turkey who come to give birth and ensure their newborns begin life as American citizens.

Pregnant women purchase package deals costing around $50,000, and come to the U.S. as a visitor for several months and have their baby on American soil. Citizenship for their babies means preferential college treatment and even allows them at age 21 to sponsor their parents for green cards. Does anyone really believe this was the intent when Congress put forward the 14th Amendment?"

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Trump cannot change the Constitution with an EO. Go ahead and flame me, tell me I’m an idiot who doesn’t understand the Constitution (I do) a-call me anti Trump, commie, liberal, Hillary lover. Doesn’t change the fact that the President cannot order the changing of the 14th amendment even if he declares a national emergency, Martial law, holds his tongue just right on a full moon facing East and saying the magic words. He doesn’t have the power and aren’t you glad or Obama would have done away with the 2nd and most of the 1st just like you are claiming Trump can do with the 14th...

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.

There are many constitutional scholars who believe that the bolded phrase does not include illegal immigrants, who are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries. Time will tell what the courts will decide, but it is certainly not an ignorant reading of the text.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Pistolay said:

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.

There are many constitutional scholars who believe that the bolded phrase does not include illegal immigrants, who are subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries. Time will tell what the courts will decide, but it is certainly not an ignorant reading of the text.

What part of that can Trump change with an EO? None

the courts have interpreted that (case law) to mean that anyone in the country is subject to the jurisdiction of the country, that people born outside the country to parents who are citizens and subject to American jurisdiction (military bases, embassies, us territories) are citizens by birthright. 

Daughter number three was born on a military base, to American parents, she is a citizen and was under US jurisdiction. 

 

Case law law can be overturned, but not by EO. It has to go through a court

 

.

 

Edited by Dric902
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump can use an EO to get a court ruling. He will be sued immediately if and when he does sign one, resulting in a likely SCOTUS ruling in a few months. Not gonna affect the caravans

i cant believe he has legal advisors who would recommend it though. This is coming from him alone, to fire up the base, make media go nuts, provoke a democrap reaction. But he has to know that he can’t actually do it.

 

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump is right in his ideology, but wrong Constitutionally.  He can't change status via EO.  These anchor babies are indeed US Citizens 

 

But what he can do is allow these new born citizens of the US to stay, but kick their illegal, criminal parents out.    Your baby can stay, but you leave tonight back to Guatemala.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

do it right at the hospital, SS#, insurance info?  citizenship?  wait right here, 

Have them give birth in cuffs and 24-36 hours later on a bus back to their home country.  Their citizen child can stay or you can take him/her with you. Going to stay?  ok... please have the person coming to pick up your child bring appropriate documentation.  What???? their not legal too.  Back to Guatemala on the same bus

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard Judge Napolitano today. He explained that the exclusion only applies to foreign diplomats and heads of state. One problem with that rationale. I've never met a foreign diplomat or head of state that was a 1-year old. That would be tantamount of mixing mayo and ketchup. Sure, it's sweet and pleasant but it's neither mayo nor ketchup.

The Congressional Record on the amendment clearly states that birthright does not apply to aliens, among others. So yes, to me the interpretation holds water.

On the other hand, Executive Orders define what the policy of the US is regarding a particular matter. Example. "By this Executive Order it is declared that it is the policy of the US Government that situation X presents a clear and present danger and therefore the  services of Cook Serve & Clean, Inc. are required to handle it".

So go for it, Mr. President. Ultimately the USSC will interpret it.

And thank you....

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let us not stop there. Let's take it all the way to the ridiculous. What if Klaatu had given birth while he was here? Was Klaatu Jr. a US citizen?

Or what about Sigourney Weaver's favorite alien? Coneheads' kids? The parents were French, weren't they?

KlaatuGreetingEarth_big.jpg&f=1

 

ETA: I'm sorry. Was that way too much xenophobic?

Edited by Ricordo
PC apology
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing this;

We don't do stunts in this department. Thank you," Mattis told a reporter who posed the question after a Pentagon meeting 

 

But if you send 800, or 1500, or 50,000.

you can’t get past the “yeah but”

Federal law prohibits the military from acting as a domestic police force, which means the troops going to the border cannot detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping the caravan. Instead, their role largely will mirror that of the existing National Guard troops, including providing helicopter support for border missions, installing concrete barriers and repairing and maintaining vehicles.

I understand firing up the base.....but be honest about it

 

.

Edited by Dric902
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rush,

Everybody is saying, “He can’t do that! That’s the 14th Amendment. You can’t universally — with an executive order — reverse the 14th Amendment.” We want to discuss how maybe he can. He’ll again run into activist judges that will turn him down here, but the point is that you need somebody like Donald Trump that’s… The 14th Amendment is what grants citizenship to anybody born in America, and it was intended… It goes back to the 1800s.

It was intended to grant citizenship to slaves and their descendants. How do you think modern African-Americans today would feel that the 14th Amendment — which was used to grant citizenship to the slaves and their descendants — is now being used to grant citizenship to anybody gets into the country just for the purposes of giving birth here? So this is something that’s long been thought to be untouchable.

Trump is saying, “Look, I think I can fix this with an executive order,” and the reason he thinks so is because the Constitution is the final word, folks. The Constitution will actually trump acts of Congress — statutory, legislative acts of Congress. If they pass something unconstitutional, the Constitution survives. If the case can be made — and people believe that it can be — that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants who are under the jurisdiction of another country, then Trump can do it.

 I’m gonna issue an executive order; I’m gonna end birthright citizenship.” Let me read to you the 14th Amendment and how it begins. “All persons  born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S. and of the state wherein they reside.” It was clearly intended to be referring to slaves and their descendants. The parts that birthright citizenship, uh, freaks have to delete are “naturalized” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” You are not naturalized and you are not subject to the U.S. jurisdiction if you’re here illegally! You cannot be!

You’re under some other country’s jurisdiction. If you’re here illegally, you cannot possibly be naturalized. Well, the birthright citizenship crowd — which wants to water down American culture and destroy Western civilization — conveniently leaves out “naturalized” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” So your born-here child absolutely is not a citizen. This is what Trump is saying. Trump is finally pushing back against an assumption that has been made because it was the path of least resistance, if you will. But now it’s make-or-break time.

 In fact, the very author of the citizenship cause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said…“This,” meaning the 14th Amendment… “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…” It was expressly intended to confer citizenship to slaves and their descendants. There was an 1884 case, Elk v. Wilkins. The Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Native Americans because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

Well, an illegal alien here is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. They’re under the jurisdiction of where they came from if they’re here illegally. 

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/10/30/trump-takes-aim-at-birthright-citizenship/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump Shows Harry Reid Supported Ending Birthright Citizenship in 1993. Reid Said His Wife Immediately Corrected Him. Then This Happened in 1994.

"In 1993, Reid introduced the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 on August 4, 1993, which read, "Any person born after the date of enactment of this title to...a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident...shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, [the child] would not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth." "

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37850/trump-shows-harry-reid-supported-ending-birthright-hank-berrien

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...