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.
Read it for yourself.
So you believe everything a politician claims? If that is what it's going to take to stop this madness then so be it.
I do not need to go over it multiple times. The text is clear, and it applies to everyone. A constitutional amendment process is the only legal way to change it.
Nice deflection, yet you don't address the question. Other than an amendment which does not address illegal aliens and their birth rights, what legitimate reason is there? That amendment had to do with former slaves and their children being citizens and voting. It never addressed illegal aliens and their children born here.
Are you a Chinese Bot in favor of Chinese women coming here and giving birth to their children in California birthing hotels? See how that works?
I answered the question: you asked why and I told you because of the text of the 14th amendment. The amendment mentions nothing about slaves, Indians, diplomats are whatever. You can say "it wasn't meant to encompass that" and the Sup Ct. might agree with you down the line. I won't deny that. But that's the answer - the text of the 14th amendment. You can carry on asking the same question when its already been answered - like a non-sentient bot.
That's not a deflection btw (again is English your first language? You seem to be using terms without really knowing what they mean). Referring to "Chinese women" in "birthing hotels" - that's what a deflection is - it moves the goalpost and hopes to emotionally appeal to a caricatured situation. The "bot" refers to repeating the same question even though its been answered. A bot "having an opinion" is a different matter. You don't seem to demonstrate (in this thread at least) knowledge of how much works period, let alone "see how that works" by citing a non-analogous grammatical usage. Not quite as mentally agile as you might hope to be.
While the back story of the amendment makes for interesting reading, and food for thought, the amendment wording still stands.
This happens with some regularity - after a law/amendment is passed, it becomes obvious there's a legal loophole.
The president/mayor/whoever is in charge of the municipality/country where it has passed legally can't just say aw naw, I'm changing it.
The loophole has to be closed through the legal process.
In this case, either rescind or modify the 14th amendment. Which isn't the job of a president.
Yes I understand that but if you read the intentions of Jacob Howard, who drafted the amendment...you find a different intention.
Quote:
While the amendment was being debated, Michigan Republican Senator Jacob Howard, who drafted the amendment along with Bingham, said that was never his intention.
'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,' he said.
'It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,' Howard added.
It is irrelevant. The baby would still be a US Citizen.
well it shouldn't have that right. it should be sent back as exiled goods with the mother in cuffs to the nation immediately after birthing onto a bus and sent home. Off the plane her and the child in her original nation can start their life together.
Even if the SC doesn't rule in favor of it, it will bring the issue to the forefront, and show members of congress that the American voters want to end this egregious clause and take steps to change it.
I think the groundswell in favor of this will shock politicians in DC.
The only problem though if the supreme court rules against the EO ending anchor baby citizenship, then it that will most likely mean it will take a constitutional amendment of the 14th Amendment which Democrats will never allow happen.
That said, there's nothing to lose issuing the EO because otherwise it is being presumed that birthright citizenship for illegal aliens' babies is required.
Nice try, but the 14th amendment only applies to former slaves and their offspring. It’s meaning was bastardized in the decades after it was added into the Constitution. The anchor baby scheme must be ended. #DeportThemAll
This is totally incorrect. Their job is to decide cases and controversies. Often that requires them to interpret the terms of statutes, but there is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the courts' interpretation supersedes the interpretation of the legislative or executive branch.
Exactly. And there's nothing that say the President or the Congress or the people for that matter can't interpret the constitution as well to begin with.
Come on folks it's time to do your homework and research the history of why the 14th Amendment was written.
Certainly the Sup Ct will do its research on that if and when the time comes as to the intent. But they will also have to consider why, even when those intentions were considered and debated, the language of it was left as it was. It is the intent of the whole (e.g., Congress) that is the question it ultimately decides, not the intent of one individual (though his statements will be considered)
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.
