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.
So you made it up. There is no basis for this in the creation of the 14th amendment and you are twisting the words to meet your cause.
I repeat
John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.
If you are capable of a civilized conversation, and stop using the stupid "meet your cause" b.s.
My only concern is this:
If illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how in the world do we apprehend them, deport them or try them for crimes? Certainly they are subject to our jurisdiction, but they remain citizens of their native country and subject, to some extent, to the jurisdiction of their native country as well (how else could we deport them?)
I would love to see this ruled on and clarify the ambiguity.
Everything can be talked about and discussed without demonizing the people who happen to disagree with YOU. DUH!
Where in the 14th Amendment does it distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants? Or immigrants and citizens, for that matter?
It doesn't. And that's the point.
That IS the point, but not in the way you think. Aliens' US-born children are born subject to their parent's sovereign nation, therefore NOT birthright US citizens.
To revisit historical facts:
1) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
2) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright US citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Basically, Trump is an anchor baby, as are three of his kids, and his wife's family is taking advantage of chain migration. The only difference is that they are filthy rich and can get the government to waive conditions.
The guy is a hypocrite.
Trump's parents came to this country illegally? You got a link to that? This is about children born from illegal aliens not citizens or legal residents, duh. There is nothing to waive rich or poor if your parents came to this country legally. Are you really this misinformed?
John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.
If you are capable of a civilized conversation, and stop using the stupid "meet your cause" b.s.
My only concern is this:
If illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how in the world do we apprehend them, deport them or try them for crimes? Certainly they are subject to our jurisdiction, but they remain citizens of their native country and subject, to some extent, to the jurisdiction of their native country as well (how else could we deport them?)
I would love to see this ruled on and clarify the ambiguity.
Everything can be talked about and discussed without demonizing the people who happen to disagree with YOU. DUH!
Exactly. This was also the basis of the case that invaders point to when claiming the fake "birthright citizenship" clause. The child in that case was born to legal U.S. residents (I think the mother was also a citizen) on U.S. soil and the racist State of California (still racist against Asians, btw), tried to say that the kid was not an American Citizen because the parents were of Chinese ancestry.
Exactly. This was also the basis of the case that invaders point to when claiming the fake "birthright citizenship" clause. The child in that case was born to legal U.S. residents (I think the mother was also a citizen) on U.S. soil and the racist State of California (still racist against Asians, btw), tried to say that the kid was not an American Citizen because the parents were of Chinese ancestry.
Again, where does the 14th Amendment distinguish between green card holders (which did not even exist at the time it was drafted), temporary legal residents, visitors, and illegal immigrants?
John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.
If you are capable of a civilized conversation, and stop using the stupid "meet your cause" b.s.
My only concern is this:
If illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, how in the world do we apprehend them, deport them or try them for crimes? Certainly they are subject to our jurisdiction, but they remain citizens of their native country and subject, to some extent, to the jurisdiction of their native country as well (how else could we deport them?)
I would love to see this ruled on and clarify the ambiguity.
Everything can be talked about and discussed without demonizing the people who happen to disagree with YOU. DUH!
That wasn't posted when I responded. Still, the article just summarized his opinion, I'd like to understand the basis. I'm not pro anchor babies, I'm just amazed by people who I would assume usually scream about constitutional originalism can be so hypocritical. I would argue when the 14th amendment was created, there was no such thing as illegal immigrants. When congress decided to create immigration laws, it either had to except the 14th as is, or amend the constution.
Exactly. This was also the basis of the case that invaders point to when claiming the fake "birthright citizenship" clause. The child in that case was born to legal U.S. residents (I think the mother was also a citizen) on U.S. soil and the racist State of California (still racist against Asians, btw), tried to say that the kid was not an American Citizen because the parents were of Chinese ancestry.
That's why I would like to see how this can be done.
Generally if Trump decided to go through with it, we can expect officials to withhold birth certificates to newborns until they are proven to have American parents. After the courts manage to get things together for this case, they would either overrule it, allow a lesser version in some states, or otherwise pass it onto a vote with the states, which would require 2/3 of the US to agree to it for it to go nationwide.
In the unlikely event that it is passed it would likely have passed with large changes to it one that would not be ending birthright citizenship, but rather just more legal hurdles. But it is most likely to simply be overruled and make Trump look bad.
Although this ( ending birthright citizenship) is good news, I doubt this will become reality.
There is at least one member of Congress who was born in the US to parents who overstayed their tourist visa.
She was born 25 days before a law expired that enabled those with US born children to bring their foreign- born children to the US, receive expedited green cards and path to citizenship.
No doubt, she is not the only member in Congress with this sort of background.
It would be beyond unweildly to attempt to unwind the back stories of those born in the US before birthright citizenship was officially eliminated.
The 150 year recognition of birthright citizenship trumps the disputed intention of the 14th amendment.
Again, where does the 14th Amendment distinguish between green card holders (which did not even exist at the time it was drafted), temporary legal residents, visitors, and illegal immigrants?
It's pretty simple. That's why this amendment needs to be clarified. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of American citizens both those born here not from illegals and those who went through the process of becoming citizens will support this.
The opponents will be the Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters and far left Democrats that see their endless supply of new voters coming from illegals crossing the border and having children here dry up.
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.
This is about children born from illegal aliens not citizens or legal residents, duh. There is nothing to waive rich or poor if your parents came to this country legally. Are you really this misinformed?
