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.
I dont believe the constitution can be changed by an EO, nor should it be. I do think it is time the 14th is scrutinized and the SCOTUS makes a determination on the language. I hope their determination would be to end birthright citizenship as it stands.
I don't see it as changing the constitution via EO, it's the executive (properly) interpreting the 14th and directing that interpretation be followed.
The executive, legislator and even the people get to interpret the constitution within reason and not just the judiciary.
I dont want them here. I dont care about culture, I care about the right thing to do. I grew up in key largo Florida, damn illegals was everywhere, barely anyone speaks English. I went back, no one does but a minority, sickening. Half of my classmates were illegal but no one cared. I am one of the ones who lived around them and really really, detest illegals and outsiders to this beautiful nation. Getting taken over, it isnt a melting pot, its a damn takeover.
How do you know your classmates were not lawful immigrants or US citizens? Did you know where they were all born? Had you scrutinized all of their immigration papers? Or had you merely heard them speaking Spanish.
Who exactly do you think are outsiders to the US? The descendants of British, Spanish, and French colonists who came in the 17th century? The descendants of African slaves who were brought in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries? The descendants of Chinese immigrants who came in the 19th century? The descendants of Scandinavian, Irish, and Italian immigrants who came in the 19th and 20th centuries? The descendants of Mexicans whose land was annexed by the United States in the 19th century? The descendants of French colonists whose land was bought by the United States in the 19th century? The descendants of myriad people who immigrated in the 20th century from around the world for work and education?
The only people who are not outsiders to this land are the descendants of the natives, who lived here for millennia before European colonists showed up.
I don't see any negatives to modifying/eliminating this amendment. Can anyone point out any?
Many other countries require that one parent be a legal resident or a citizen of the country in order for the baby to obtain citizenship. Otherwise, the baby will have the same citizenship as the mother.
People who are born here and grow up here ought to be able to live here without jumping through hoops with immigration and facing unnecessary steps to obtain authorization to study and work here.
I have to agree with you. It has to be addressed legislatively, not by an execute order. The point is, it has to be addressed because it is being abused and is having an economic impact.
Congress will never address it. Democrats won't allow it. Democrats got a lot of things made law by the Supreme Court that the legislator wouldn't enact, abortion, gay marriage, DACA etc, so it's high time republicans did.
I don't see any negatives to modifying/eliminating this amendment. Can anyone point out any?
Many other countries require that one parent be a legal resident or a citizen of the country in order for the baby to obtain citizenship. Otherwise, the baby will have the same citizenship as the mother.
The left opposes anything Trump suggests, even if it makes sense. The UK did away with a similar rule in the early 80s. None of Europe has this. I really don't understand why liberals are defending this.
Right on cue, Trump is attacking Paul Ryan today for disagreeing with him.
Because like any schoolyard bully, his anger and ego know no bounds. If you disagree with Trump, like the child Donald is, he attacks you. R or D in front of your name means nothing to him.
What a sensitive little snowflake. How dare anybody disagree with him about ANYTHING. Heavens to Betsy.
And just moments ago, Trump mentioned chain migration and how bad it is when talking about Hispanics.
Melania's mother and father came here to the US through chain migration. But it benefits Trump in that particular case, so I guess he was okay with it.
The left opposes anything Trump suggests, even if it makes sense. The UK did away with a similar rule in the early 80s. None of Europe has this. I really don't understand why liberals are defending this.
Almost the entire western hemisphere has birthright citizenship. There is a notable difference in history between the Americas and Afroeurasia that is pertinent to birthright citizenship in the modern era.
Most countries derive their national identity on the basis of ethnicity. The US is one of the few nations that disavows such idea. If national identity is a matter of “blood”, then to award citizenship to “non-natives” is immediately problematic. If national identity is a matter of “creed”, then it’s no great leap to award citizenship to anyone who’s keenly interested in partaking of said creed, regardless of ethnicity or even national origin.
The practical implication is that the meaning of citizenship in the US is going to be distinctly different from that in France, or Russia, or China, or Gabon. To be blunt, the “standards” of citizenship are going to be lower.
My view on the 14th amendment is that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” [of the United States], refers to persons in the US, who do not have foreign diplomatic status. This is nearly everyone, legal or illegal. That is, a baby born on US soil to diplomats from a foreign power, does not obtain US birthright citizenship. Consider for example the Prime Minister of New Zealand – a relatively young lady who recently had a baby, while in office. Suppose that, while pregnant, she was in the middle of a state visit to the US… and went into labor. The baby would be delivered at a US hospital. But because the mother has diplomatic status in New Zealand, the baby does not get US citizenship. If however the mother were some random private citizen, again from New Zealand, say on a business-trip to the US, then the baby would get birthright US citizenship.
I’m OK with this, because the very nature of what it means to be a US citizen is weaker – by design – than what it means to be a German or an Ethiopian or whatever citizen. Another good example is Israel. Ethnic Jews are eligible to become Israeli citizens even if their forefathers haven’t been in the land that became Israel since Masada fell in 70 A.D. It doesn’t matter where they were born, or what creed they follow. Ethnicity trumps (pun intended) all. The American approach is the diametric opposite of that – consistent, I think, with the 14th Amendment.
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.
Trump plans to sign EO endiing birthright citizenship
