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.
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."
The qualifier is obviously there to exclude Native Americans on their reserved lands and diplomats (and their families), neither of whom are subject to US jurisdiction or laws (Native Americans were later granted citizenship rights in 1924).
That's another historical inaccuracy. Native Americans were subject to US criminal law and federal courts since 1885, but didn't have birthright US citizenship until specifically granted an exception by a Legislative Act in 1924. Prior to that, they were born in the US, but were not birthright US citizens. They had to naturalize.
Info on this from the FBI:
Quote:
"In 1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act to address the resolution of cases in which a crime involving two Native American parties occurs in Indian country. This Act established federal jurisdiction over seven crimes committed in these instances. The original seven covered by the Act include murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny. Subsequent amendments to the Act have added seven more offenses: kidnapping, incest, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, assault with intent to commit rape, robbery, and felonious sexual molestation of a minor. Although the intent of the Act is to permit federal punishment of major crimes by Indians against other Native Americans, the Major Crimes Act applies even in offenses committed by Indians against individuals of another ethnicity."
"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."
"All persons born" seems pretty straight-forward. I wonder how those that believe in the 'originalism' viewpoint of the Constitution would interpret this clause? What did they mean by 'All persons born'?
In short, President Trump cannot amend the meaning of the Constitution by executive order. I happen to agree that the Constitution should be amended so that 'anchor babies' (meaning, those whose parents are not US citizens) are not citizens simply due to the fact that they were born within our borders. If one parent is a citizen, fine. If both are not, then no citizenship for the child.
But such can only be by amending the Constitution.
This looks like showboating for the election. He signs the order, a judge strikes it down on constitutional grounds, he complains about the judges.
Very set up manipulation of the voters.
You need to get with the program. This has been a hot topic for decades with the increase of illegal aliens coming here and having anchor babies. This isn't the 1800s anymore when this amendment was put in place so slaves would be able to vote.
This issue needs to make it's way through the courts. A judge striking it down means nothing. It's up to the Supreme Court to decided which way this should go. This should have been looked at again by the Supreme Court at least 30 years ago.
^^^ Thank you for illustrating the point of my post. In 2 years you will be asked to get this upset again.
Who's upset? I merely posted an article that I saw this morning. On the other hand read the posts of those in here that want to continue this unconstitutional nonsense and there you will see "upset" including you!
I'm not a lawyer so won't pretend to know if an EO is able to end birthright citizenship rights. I support ending birthright citizenship to children born to women in the US illegally and women from other countries who fly into the US to give birth. The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens.
how the former president could use an EO to amend immigration laws for 'dreamers' to remain legally in this country never made sense to me; however this EO has held up in the courts so far.
On the bold - the difference is that the Dems didn't pull a topic out of their a$$es just to instigate their base. Dems are mostly running on healthcare. If Trump and company truly wanted to get rid of birthright citizenship, they could have done it over the past 20 months via amending the constitution.
Shows me he nor the GOP are serious about the issue.
Well, the Dems might want to adopt it as an idea for themselves so that we can afford the said healthcare plan they are always BSing about. Otherwise, it's just a marketing ploy for votes.
We need to stop importing poverty and start putting our money where our mouth is. If we do a few things like eliminating birth citizenship, we very well could afford a single payer healthcare plan.
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.
