Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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.
It seems pretty clear to me. The 14th Amendment states that all people born here are citizens. Either work for a constitutional amendment or don't. An executive order would be unconstitutional.
President Donald Trump said in an interview posted on Tuesday that he intends to sign an executive order that would terminate birthright citizenships in part of an effort to end "anchor babies" and "chain migration."
I don't think he can do that without a constitutional amendment.
This looks like showboating to me. No surprise really.
I don't think he can do it by EO either but it wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to fix it either. The Supreme Court needs to re-visit the intent and meaning of the birthright citizenship clause as it was written and explained at the time. It's plain even to a layman me like that the offspring of illegal aliens born on our soil were never intended to be birthright citizens. It's been ignored for far too long and they are merely been deemed birthright citizens by a PC policy.
It seems pretty clear to me. The 14th Amendment states that all people born here are citizens. Either work for a constitutional amendment or don't. An executive order would be unconstitutional.
Here's where you go wrong. "And" subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a qualifier of birthright citizenship. If everyone born on our soil were and instant citizen that qualifier would not have been necessary. It would have been redundant. Their parents are not subject to our jurisdiction they are subject to their own homeland's jurisdiction. Sure they are subject to obeying our laws but that's an entirely different thing. No one gets a pass on our laws regardless of their status in our country. Here's the truth for you to read.
"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".
I don't think he can do it by EO either but it wouldn't take a constitutional amendment to fix it either. The Supreme Court needs to re-visit the intent and meaning of the birthright citizenship clause as it was written and explained at the time. It's plain even to a layman me like that the offspring of illegal aliens born on our soil were never intended to be birthright citizens. It's been ignored for far too long and they are merely been deemed birthright citizens by a PC policy.
I agree, and I'm a liberal/leftist/progressive!
two things:
Fix e-verify and make all employers use it and end birthright citizenship.
Here's where you go wrong. "And" subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a qualifier of birthright citizenship. If everyone born on our soil were and instant citizen that qualifier would not have been necessary. It would have been redundant. Their parents are not subject to our jurisdiction they are subject to their own homeland's jurisdiction. Sure they are subject to obeying our laws but that's an entirely different thing. No one gets a pass on our laws regardless of their status in our country. Here's the truth for you to read.
"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".
You were already schooled on this point multiple times. That phrase only refers to progeny of diplomats and Native Americans in areas beyond the jurisdiction of US Courts. This was expressly discussed by the drafters of the Amendment and confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Let them disagree all they want. Take it to the Supreme Court as they would have the final say. None of your links are accessible the way you posted them. I can see some flaws already though. The Daily Beast? Judge Napolitano is merely saying that Trump can't change it by EO and I agree with that. All three of your links only reference that judge.
two things:
Fix e-verify and make all employers use it and end birthright citizenship.
I don't want money spent on a wall, though.
And your reason for not wanting the 700 mile long wall completed on the most porous areas of our border already approved by congress back in 2006, is?
I have posted several links proving that the good walls that are already in place have been very effective in deterring illegal entry. Do I need to post them once again? Not every illegal is coming here to work or give birth on our soil. Certainly not criminals, terrorists are the drug cartels aren't.
The wall is also cost effective when you consider that illegal immigration costs us over $100 billion a year. Funny, how you anti-wall people didn't complain back in 2006 about building that wall. Hmm.
President Donald Trump said in an interview posted on Tuesday that he intends to sign an executive order that would terminate birthright citizenships in part of an effort to end "anchor babies" and "chain migration."
Best news I've heard in a long time!
Is this gonna happen as promised? When?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judge Napolitano is merely saying that Trump can't change it by EO and I agree with that. All three of your links only reference that judge. 