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.
Lindsay Graham is introducing a bill to do just that. Took Trump to get them off the pot on the issue.
All he needs now is a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress and 38 states to ratify his new amendment. If he hurries, he might get it done in time for the 2096 elections.
LOL,LOL,LOL ahhh but it takes 2/3 to pass it.....not going to happen!
Congress can pass any law it wants. The fact that 2/3s and more aren't chomping at the bit to amend the 14th says a lot about the people elected to congress. They are thieves and enemies of the country and stealing from the people and enabling their illegal alien thieves.
They are not free agents. Anchor babies have the foreign citizenship of their foreign parents. They need to all go home.
I observed a lot of pregnant women already carrying other small children in that caravan. I'm sure those women think they will have it made once they have the baby here on US soil...as it stands now their child will be handed a US citizenship with all the bells and whistles that go along with being a no income mother.
Those were not invaders. They were lawfully present persons.
The clause's author said, “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.”[1]
Now, if we could just go back in time and ask him we'd certainly ask him to instead word the clause as, "any person born [to "citizens or lawful permanent residents"] or naturalized in the United States".....because apparently that is what was actually intended.
Instead we have this convoluted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which was meant to convey [fully] to the jurisdiction thereof (and thus not owing any allegiance to another nation or being in any regard under the jurisdiction of another nation - as the children of foreigners automatically are, that being the jurisdiction of their parents' nation).
Except he later clarified that the clause meant anyone who is subject to the laws of the US, as applied by Congress, the Executive, and the judiciary, rather than expressly delineating between certain classes of people because of their immigration status. This has been covered multiple times on this thread, yet you seem to ignore it. Why?
I observed a lot of pregnant women already carrying other small children in that caravan. I'm sure those women think they will have it made once they have the baby here on US soil...as it stands now their child will be handed a US citizenship with all the bells and whistles that go along with being a no income mother.
No doubt and it is essentially stealing from the American people.
We all know Lindsey is looking for Trump approval for something (prob Attyn General). The problem here is that you need to FIRST build bipartisan consensus in Congress and then - based on what you know and hear from members - put the bill together (it would be many many pages to address the situation)....
That's the kind of nonsense we have been trained to believe. This "bipartisan consensus" requirement to begin a bill is what leads to stagnation. And a bill does not have to be pages and pages. That is the problem. We make our laws so complex now that no one can understand them.
If that kind of thinking was prevalent in 1786, the Constitution would have taken 20 years of discussion and consisted of millions of pages. Like most Amendments, the 14th Amendment is barely a paragraph. A simple clear paragraph would be enough. In fact, all that is needed is one additional clause ", and where at least one parent is a citizen or legal permanent resident".
If brevity is good enough for the Constitution it's good enough for U.S. Code.
That's what a birthright IS. It is passed down from parents to their offspring, it has nothing to do with their age. Do you think that a court would disinherit infants who are orphaned at a day old? That a court would say, "Oh, you are too young , you're not an heir. You cannot inherit."
It doesn't seem like you know what common words mean.
It does not seem you know what common words mean...
********************************
Definition of birthright
: a right, privilege, or possession to which a person is entitled by birth
********************************
Might come from a parent but need not.
Jus Soli does not come from the parents but from the state and is automatic unless a major counter exists.
The major counters in the US are foreign representatives and Indians non taxed.
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."
Trump told "Axios on HBO," that the U.S. is the only country in the world "where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits."
Trump has said the U.S. is the only nation in the world to grant birthright citizenship. The Center for Immigration Studies identified at least 30 nations that grant birthright citizenship, however, including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California-San Diego, told Politifact in 2015 that birthright citizenship is a holdover from colonial times, when European countries granted lenient naturalization laws in order to conquer new lands. That's why the practice is almost exclusively used in the Western Hemisphere.
Hey see my post and please respond. You asked me and I answered. I asked you twice now with no answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
No I'm a liberal that never votes straight party line. In fact all of my voting years in Houston I voted for Dems as it was easy. I never voted for a Republican in my entire voting history which has been since I was legally allowed to vote...until I moved to CA.
What is deemed a Democrat here is not the same as a Democrat in Houston. What is deemed a Republican here is not the same as a Republican in Houston. Interesting is it not?
Let me give you a good example of this. Sylvester Turner fought hard against the homeless ordinance that was imposed on HPD. His hard fight overturned that ruling. Here in CA that would never happen with a Democratic Mayor. NEVER.
There are a lot of things I disagree with when it comes to both parties ideologies. It's clear our 2 party system is not working very well any longer.
Depends on the interpretation now doesn't it? Yeah it does. It will go to SCOTUS and finally be resolved. It wasn't meant to be used as a citizenship generator for foreigners and everyone knows it but they cheat the system with it.
It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
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.
