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

[dilbert firestorm]

your welcome.

[grean]

Originally Posted by Budman

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 asked a simple question. Didn't intend to insult or bait anyone. You're a citizen because your parents were...
Why were they citizens? Why were mine citizens? What did they do to be citizens aside from being born here? Why does whatever they did matter in regards to our status as citizens. At some point someone crossed an ocean,not just a river, to get here to allow you & I to be citizens. When do we decide to make the cut off?


We absolutely need better control of our borders. Birth right citizenship will not do anything to cut down on illegal immigration.

They would come regardless

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by 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.



like those 2016 pre-election scare tactics like Trump will start WWIII, Trump will lose jobs, Trump will crash the economy.. you mean those kind of scare tactics?


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.

Originally Posted by 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.

stop with the hysterics dude this isn't Iwo Jima. but if any and all resources need to be deployed to secure the border i'm all for it.


are you?

[grean]

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.

Senator Jacob Howard's full text was not included in the amendment just like any number of ammendmentsnew the proposed language by some didn't make the final draft.

Many founders of this country thought people who were here prior to the revolution were citizens. They never put an ammendment up for ratification.

The 14th, I'm sure had lots of proposed text that people wanted to include. Likewise lots of text was omitted because a politician could not or would not get the votes to ratify if that text were to be included.

The ammendment that was passed said if a person is born in the United states, they get citizenship.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

Senator Jacob Howard's full text was not included in the amendment just like any number of ammendmentsnew the proposed language by some didn't make the final draft.

Many founders of this country thought people who were here prior to the revolution were citizens. They never put an ammendment up for ratification.

The 14th, I'm sure had lots of proposed text that people wanted to include. Likewise lots of text was omitted because a politician could not or would not get the votes to ratify if that text were to be included.

The ammendment that was passed said if a person is born in the United states, they get citizenship.

Oh, but SEN Howard's full statement is in the Congressional Record documenting the 39th Congress' intent (see @ here). Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are "originalists", and "intent", to them, is every bit as important as the actual text of the Amendment. The Congressional Record says children born to aliens -- children born as subjects of foreign governments -- are NOT citizens. Trump's EO will put this issue back before the Supreme Court where it will be adjudicated by "originalists". Brennan will be overturned.

[dilbert firestorm]

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/ju...anchor-babies/


the 1982 supreme court ruling should be over turned.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by grean

Who within our borders is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Those with diplomatic immunity?

Illegal aliens most certainly will tell you they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they are arrested by the border patrol.

Read James Madison.

The Founders meant "Subject to the jursdiction there of" to mean CITIZENS of. Not under the laws of.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...

Put simply, "jurisdiction" is merely the lawful authority to act. Jurisdiction may arise from geography or subject matter. [See Federal Jurisdiction within this site.] In the case of the 14th Amendment, the jurisdiction is based on subject matter, not geography.
The issue being addressed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is plainly "citizenship". So where does citizenship come from? [See Citizenship within this site.] Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, citizenship could only be obtained at the state level. Any rights, privileges and immunities [main body of the Constitution] obtained under the federal Constitution were based exclusively on one's status as a citizen of a state of the Union. It is still that way today for Americans who are within that original class of citizenship.
With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the citizens of the states of the Union agreed to give Congress a hitherto unpossessed power; the power to grant a form of federal citizenship to those "persons" who had been born in any state of the Union, who'd been held in slavery, and under the Constitution of that state could not become a citizen thereof. The states also agreed to consider this new form of citizen as a citizen of a state if the person were to reside within a state.
In other words, §1983 offers its protection to the very same "class of person" as does §1981. In fact, §1981 provides the underlying legal basis, i.e. "... [to] enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens", upon which all other sections of chapter 21 are built. Or phrased another way, every section that comes after §1981 is merely a mechanism to enforce one or more elements of §1981.

As per http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Originally Posted by grean

What would you use to grant citizenship ,if not birth ,in the United States?

As i said above.. A mix of

A) HAVING ONE OF YOUR parents being a US citizen.
B) being in the country legally
and C) being born in the US...
NOT JUST THE LAST part.
but all 3

Originally Posted by grean

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

You came in on a proper legal visa, whether as a tourist, student or worker. OR have been granted legal status to stay via refugee/asylum courts.

Originally Posted by Jackie S

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

Hence my statement on page 2, of trump shouldn't be doing this via EO but by Changing the wording of the 14th.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by grean

I asked a simple question. Didn't intend to insult or bait anyone. You're a citizen because your parents were...
Why were they citizens? Why were mine citizens? What did they do to be citizens aside from being born here? Why does whatever they did matter in regards to our status as citizens. At some point someone crossed an ocean,not just a river, to get here to allow you & I to be citizens. When do we decide to make the cut off?


We absolutely need better control of our borders. Birth right citizenship will not do anything to cut down on illegal immigration.

They would come regardless

Legally is the key to all of this debate. My ancestors were here legally. Ending birthright citizenship & chain migration would most definitely slow down the illegal immigration. It would not stop it altogether but it would put a dent in it.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by grean

We absolutely need better control of our borders. Birth right citizenship will not do anything to cut down on illegal immigration.

They would come regardless

Some would come regardless but it would not only cut down on illegal immigration but some of the ones here illegally would leave and never come back illegally. There are many ways to control our borders in addition to putting up a wall.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

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

Worth repeating...

Trumps wife is an "Anchor Bimbo"...now her god damn old ass parents are citizens!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by garhkal

Hence my statement on page 2, of trump shouldn't be doing this via EO but by Changing the wording of the 14th.

making a new amendment isn't need. EO is the right way to do this.



what the EO can do is clarify what it means. one way Trump can do this is copy verbatim Howard's statement in the EO and outline who is under jurisdiction there of under U.S.



the humiliating hang wringing by Ryan was totally un-necessary.



Graham says he will follow up with legislation to support Trump's EO.


the legislation may not be even necessary. It boils down to how the EO is written.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by WTF

Worth repeating...

Trumps wife is an "Anchor Bimbo"...now her god damn old ass parents are citizens!

Did Melania's parents immigrate legally? Are they naturalized citizens?

[rexdutchman]

This is just a mid term ploy, politicized I think to show just how hypocritical and hysterical the Dim-Tards act.
However isn't it funny how the Dim-Tards read the 14 ad part 1 verbatim , and the Bill of Rights ad 1,2,4,5,6, and 10 are not clear to them , (HYPOCRIES)
And of a matter of course the lamestream media's response is "he cant do that" EO , yet Obumboo did everything by EO ?

[rexdutchman]

Oh and PS - I'm all for LEGAL immigration / NOT ILLEGAL just walk in

[Austin Ellen]

-