Trump will sign Executive Order revoking birthright citizenship. And, of course, lies about it!

[Lantern2814]

The 14th Amendment was NEVER meant to apply to illegals. Thank a bunch of liberal judges for that poor interpretation. Just because you sneaked across the border, that does not give you the same rights as an American citizen. As far as jurisdiction, these illegals are under the jurisdiction of their native country. That's why there is such a thing as extradition. If this does end up falling under an interpretation of the law issue, Trump has a good chance of this passing muster with the courts.

[grean]

Originally Posted by Budman

That's easy. Be here legally when you give birth. All others are here illegally including the new born.

What's legally here mean? If not by birth, how are you here legally?

[grean]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

The 14th Amendment was NEVER meant to apply to illegals. Thank a bunch of liberal judges for that poor interpretation. Just because you sneaked across the border, that does not give you the same rights as an American citizen. As far as jurisdiction, these illegals are under the jurisdiction of their native country. That's why there is such a thing as extradition. If this does end up falling under an interpretation of the law issue, Trump has a good chance of this passing muster with the courts.

And they are also subject to the jurisdiction of the United states while within it's borders, are they not?

[Austin Ellen]

My experience with this was in the housing industry. I had large properties with mostly hispanic people. So what they would do is when one of their relatives was pregnant over in Mexico they would bring them here to the U.S. and have them give birth here in the U.S. They are illegals. This happened so often I lost count. They take them to the county hospital and have them give birth. Bingo - American Citizen. Trump knows whats going on and he is trying to fix it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

Proof? Or is that an uninformed opinion based on MSM talking points?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/college...gop-1514293200

this from that vast Bastion of liberal journalism The Wall Street Journal

[Jackie S]

We might all recognize that the 14th was meant to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children. But in none of the sections contained in the Amendment does it say that.

The Left uses the same argument against the 2d Amendment. "It does not pertain to our modern society because weapons in the 18th century were not capable of the destruction as today's".

But th 2d doesn't say what kind of arms. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

In my opinion, the only way to get rid of the "anchor baby" thing is to amend the Constitution.

[grean]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

We might all recognize that the 14th was meant to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children. But in none of the sections contained in the Amendment does it say that.

The Left uses the same argument against the 2d Amendment. "It does not pertain to our modern society because weapons in the 18th century were not capable of the destruction as today's".

But th 2d doesn't say what kind of arms. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

In my opinion, the only way to get rid of the "anchor baby" thing is to amend the Constitution.

Exactly

[Budman]

Originally Posted by grean

What's legally here mean? If not by birth, how are you here legally?

With remarks like this it is really hard to remain civil and avoid points from WU. You must be playing games and trying to bait me into an insult laden response. Not gonna happen.



I'm here legally because my parents were citizens of this great country. Swimming across the rio grande and sneaking into this country to give birth should not give you a foothold into this country. You know as well as everyone here that the anchor baby BS is just another phase of chain migration. Let's have a baby in the US and down the road they can get all of the family into the country. I understand why they want in but doing it legally should be the only option. Doing away with the anchor baby / chain migration BS will certainly slow down the illegal entry into this country.



Are you of the opinion that anyone that wants in should be allowed to come in? Open borders for all.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

We might all recognize that the 14th was meant to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children. But in none of the sections contained in the Amendment does it say that.

The Left uses the same argument against the 2d Amendment. "It does not pertain to our modern society because weapons in the 18th century were not capable of the destruction as today's".

But th 2d doesn't say what kind of arms. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

In my opinion, the only way to get rid of the "anchor baby" thing is to amend the Constitution.

An Executive Order from Trump will be immediately challenged in the courts by some lib-retard fanatic guaranteeing the Constitutionality of the EO will be adjudicated by a conservative, Constitutionalist Supreme Court which bases its decision on original intent. Gate crashing illegals were not part of the original intent behind the 14th Amendment.

"[S]ome argue that the Amendment, written in 1868, does not apply.

"And Trump, along with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, also asserted during the 2016 primaries that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" refers only to people with a legal right to be in the U.S."

(The Daily Wire)

Basic history: The common law at the time of the Founding gave birthright citizenship to all except slaves and Indians. The Supreme Court’s infamous ruling in Dred Scott (1857) confirmed the denial of citizenship to slaves, even if they were freed. The Fourteenth Amendment overturned Dred Scott with respect to blacks (and other non-white races), though Indians were still denied citizenship because they owed allegiance to their tribes, not to the United States. (Native Americans were granted citizenship by statute in 1924, though that allegiance/dual-loyalty paradox still clouds much of Indian law.)

The proponents of the Fourteenth Amendment added “subject to the jurisdiction” to the Fourteenth Amendment in order to exclude from citizenship two groups beside Indians: the children of (1) foreign diplomats and (2) enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation. That understanding was affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), when it recognized the U.S. citizenship of a man who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. Wong’s parents weren’t citizens, although they were legal residents.

(Cato)

[Yssup Rider]

I think this might be another example of Trump's mouth writing a check his fat ass can't cash.

It's a pre-election scare tactic.

How could you believe otherwise?

And, when he realizes how out of line it is, he'll blame the idea on someone else.

The media? Sure. But maybe he'll take the opportunity to go after DOJ again.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Bingo - American Citizen. Trump knows whats going on and he is trying to fix it.

Is Trump going to fix "Anchor Bimbos" who marry little dick old men so they can then bring their parents over here?

You know like Melania did.

Is he going to fix "Anchor apartments" , you know the practice where rich Russians who have pilfered billions from Russia start buying property from crooked real estate developers turn politician

[Yssup Rider]

I wonder if the troops being deployed (as advisors only, legally) to the border will get to vote before the first wave breaches the Rio Grande.

[dilbert firestorm]

one thing needs to be pointed out that in 1868, the year 14th amendment was written, U.S. was an open border state. It didn't have much of way on immigration policy. That came much later in the late 1880's.

btw, that 5th district Judge Ho is wrong. If he had done some research, he would not make such comment about changing the meaning of the constitution. The EO Trump will sign is going be based on the 14th amendment, current immigration laws and previous court rulings.

Oh yeah, Ex-Supreme Justice Brennan's wrong too!!!!

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthri...al_intent.html

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The 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. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11, 16 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

[Wakeup]

Originally Posted by Budman

With remarks like this it is really hard to remain civil and avoid points from WU.

No, it isn’t...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

one thing needs to be pointed out that in 1868, the year 14th amendment was written, U.S. was an open border state. It didn't have much of way on immigration policy. That came much later in the late 1880's.

btw, that 5th district Judge Ho is wrong. If he had done some research, he would not make such comment about changing the meaning of the constitution. The EO Trump will sign is going be based on the 14th amendment, current immigration laws and previous court rulings.

Oh yeah, Ex-Supreme Justice Brennan's wrong too!!!!

https://www.14thamendment.us/birthri...al_intent.html

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."


The 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. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.


In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."


The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction.


In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11, 16 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

You beat me to this Dilbert, but thanks.

I was looking for this stuff by Senator Jacob Howard. I heard him referenced earlier today, but didn't catch his name. I only caught the gist of what he wrote as to "intent". Trump's EO won't overturn Brennan, but it will put Brennan's ruling back before the Supreme Court where Brennan will be overruled with a ruling based on a correct interpretation of "intent".