Ending Birthright Citizenship?

[wiffleball 4,655]

Via XO.

 

Trump's looking to do it.

 

Pretty sure the Constitution says otherwise.

 

Cant wait for SaraChunky to 'clarify'.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Via XO.

 

Trump's looking to do it.

 

Pretty sure the Constitution says otherwise.

 

Cant wait for SaraChunky to 'clarify'.

 

Link?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

You wish you could tap Sara. Even she's out of your league.

[Voltaire 4,571]

 

Link?

It's the 14th Amendment

 

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

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

 

-------

 

I don't like it and I agree that it needs to go, but it seems pretty clear to me that doing so would require a Constitutional Amendment. As much as it pains me, I simply can't read the 14th Amendment and interpret it otherwise than clearly endorsing birthright citizenship.

[wiffleball 4,655]

Exactly Volty.

[wiffleball 4,655]

You wish you could tap Sara. Even she's out of your league.

Had a French teacher like her. I bet she doesn't shave her legs either. Blech

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

It's the 14th Amendment

 

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

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

 

-------

 

I don't like it and I agree that it needs to go, but it seems pretty clear to me that doing so would require a Constitutional Amendment. As much as it pains me, I simply can't read the 14th Amendment and interpret it otherwise than clearly endorsing birthright citizenship.

 

Exactly Volty.

 

Thanks guys.

 

I'd agree then that Trump should not consider an Executive Order that does away with or suspends it. That needs to be handled as an amendment.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

He wont try it. He doesnt want to have an executive order slapped down by SCOTUS, which would be inevitable.

[Voltaire 4,571]

Look, you put up the wall, deport hardcore criminals, end chain migration, end the visa lottery... those four things can maybe, theoretically be done if the GOP keeps the House and Senate, but likely not, you see how much sitting on their asses was done in two years, and they'll almost surely have less votes next year. There were two good amendments proposed and neither went anywhere.

 

They aren't proving any money for a wall. Of course a mile long, 10,000 people walking advertisement for Trump's Wall is on it's way to the US and another one is forming in El Salvador. Trump would need to seriously light a fire to get Congress to do anything.

 

The thing of it is that the Dems see illegal immigrants as future voters if/when they can successfully legalize them. The GOP sees them as $5.00/hr no benefits slave labor. Elites in both parties like having underpaid nannies and gardeners while neither gives a sh*t that they're driving down the wages of everyday Americans.

[kilroy69 1,011]

You wish you could tap Sara. Even she's out of your league.

the more I see her the more I want to bang her.

[Voltaire 4,571]

the more I see her the more I want to bang her.

I'm glad I don't suffer from your affliction.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

the more I see her the more I want to bang her.

 

She already looks like she's been hit with something.

[wiffleball 4,655]

 

She already looks like she's been hit with something.

I bet she fills the bowl everytime .

 

 

...and I ain't talking Halloween candy.

[Voltaire 4,571]

When you figure that liberals despise the 1st and 2nd Amendment and neither sides cares about the 4th, maybe the conservatives taking a dump on thew 14th amendment isn't so bad.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

When you figure that liberals despise the 1st and 2nd Amendment and neither sides cares about the 4th, maybe the conservatives taking a dump on thew 14th amendment isn't so bad.

Truth.

[cbfalcon 824]

When you figure that liberals despise the 1st and 2nd Amendment and neither sides cares about the 4th, maybe the conservatives taking a dump on thew 14th amendment isn't so bad.

 

I'm somewhat in this group. But not because I despise the content of any particular amendment. I just don't believe it wise for us to treat a document that was written back in the days of Pangaea and Velociraptors to be beyond question.

 

If birthright citizenship no longer makes sense, by all means sign an executive order. Same thing with other parts of the constitution though. Have principles and stick to them.

[wiffleball 4,655]

Would Obummers kids still be citizens?

[bandrus1 413]

 

I'm somewhat in this group. But not because I despise the content of any particular amendment. I just don't believe it wise for us to treat a document that was written back in the days of Pangaea and Velociraptors to be beyond question.

 

If birthright citizenship no longer makes sense, by all means sign an executive order. Same thing with other parts of the constitution though. Have principles and stick to them.

 

 

Guess you dont believe in separation of powers either

[wiffleball 4,655]

I can't even fathom how this would work. Some kind of multi factor tests?

 

If Parent "A"...

[SenatorRock 708]

What you won't see on CNN:

 

http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies

 

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

 

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 writing:

 

"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"

 

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.

 

 

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

[Voltaire 4,571]

 

"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"

 

Fascinating

 

Well, if so, game on then.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

What you won't see on CNN:

 

http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies

 

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

 

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 writing:

 

"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"

 

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.

 

 

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

 

 

 

I think Trump is fine to do so then.

[Strike 4,020]

Fascinating

 

Well, if so, game on then.

 

Yup, what he said. The SCOTUS unfortunately has thus far ignored that all important clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and interpreted the amendment incorrectly. But with the new SCOTUS justices it's possible we could go the other way.

[Kanil 519]

I'd support this amendment. I don't think an XO will work but I'm all for an amendment ending birthright citizenship.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I'd support this amendment. I don't think an XO will work but I'm all for an amendment ending birthright citizenship.

 

I think that's the point...........does it need another amendment or just to be clarified with Exec Order and if challenged, the SCOTUS interprets it.

[seafoam1 1,879]

You wish you could tap Sara. Even she's out of your league.

You wish you could tap anything other than your hand. Keep dreaming though.

[Kanil 519]

 

I think that's the point...........does it need another amendment or just to be clarified with Exec Order and if challenged, the SCOTUS interprets it.

 

I just think it's going to fail as an XO. What was written above is not in the amendment. The amendment is the law:

(spoilered because it's long)

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the

laws.

 

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according

to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state,

excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the

choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States,

Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or

the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the

inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age,

and citizens of the United States, or in any way

abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of

representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of

such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one

years of age in such state.

 

 

Section 3.

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of

President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the

United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a

member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any

state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to

support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in

insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the

enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove

such disability.

 

Section 4.

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,

including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in

suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the

United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred

in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for

the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and

claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5.

 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the

provisions of this article.

Nowhere in there does it say anything other than the way it currently enforced. This is going to have to be an amendment but maybe an XO gets the ball rolling (even if it does get overturned.)

[Thornton Melon 546]

What you won't see on CNN:

 

http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies

 

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

 

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 writing:

 

"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"

 

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.

 

 

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

 

I'm 100% on board with this. I wish this guy represented my state:

 

https://steveking.house.gov/media-center/columns/ending-birthright-citizenship-does-not-require-a-constitutional-amendment

[SenatorRock 708]

Remember when Harry Reid (D-NV) said no sane country would give citizenship to those born to illegals?

 

YouTube members:

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'd support this amendment. I don't think an XO will work but I'm all for an amendment ending birthright citizenship.

Agreed. If we want to change it, an XO is not the proper route to take.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

I just think it's going to fail as an XO. What was written above is not in the amendment. The amendment is the law:

(spoilered because it's long)

 

It's about interpreting what the authors meant the Amendment to mean hence the need for strict Constitutionalists on the SCOTUS. The Constitution doesn't evolve with the current political climate.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Part of the constitution that is long past it's relevance.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Does that mean our grandkids won't be US Citizens?

[seafoam1 1,879]

I hope Trump makes no move on the amendments. Because if he were to succeed and set precedence, then the next time a democrat gets into office, you can kiss the 1st and 2nd amendments goodbye as you know them today.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Does that mean our grandkids won't be US Citizens?

Are your kids citizens?

[Strike 4,020]

I hope Trump makes no move on the amendments. Because if he were to succeed and set precedence, then the next time a democrat gets into office, you can kiss the 1st and 2nd amendments goodbye as you know them today.

Constitution isn't getting changed anytime soon. Almost impossible to do in this day and age. Just need to get the issue before the SCOTUS and hopefully they will change previous precedent.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

Are your kids citizens?

It was a joke.

 

 

 

Service = citizenship

[wiffleball 4,655]

Does that mean our grandkids won't be US Citizens?

If they make this retroactive, bye bye pro sports.

[supermike80 1,302]

Trump has a tendency to talk without thinking ...I know that's news to many here. So I give this little credence and just chalk it up to the continued ramblings of a stupid man.

[seafoam1 1,879]

Trump has a tendency to talk without thinking ...I know that's news to many here. So I give this little credence and just chalk it up to the continued ramblings of a stupid man.

Hmm. The irony here.