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.
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
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.
Nope it clearly states all person born.....nothing about just slaves.
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.
SO PRESIDENT TRUMP ENACT THE EO NOW.
I dunno about "never". They would probably consider it if the 2nd was co-amended to limit it to "hand guns" or some such. But that would be a hard pill to swallow on the other side.
So, those that support this...do you like the precedent that some future president could come along and sign an EO proclaiming that the 2nd amendment only applies if you register to join a militia?
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.
They can "interpret" it but so what? A law held unconsitutional by the court of last resort is not enforceable.
The court can't change the words of the Constitution tho. On the other hand, the people through their representatives can.
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.
Isn't the whole conservative/Republican/Constitutionalist thing that the Constitution can't be just randomly interpreted.
Basically the Constitution says what it means and means what it says...it's not up to debate for the most part.
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified to help blacks, especially emancipated former slaves, have a chance to integrate into society after the American Civil War. Congress wanted to prevent the U.S. states where they lived from sidestepping the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans to guarantee their rights to 'life, liberty and property.'
By 1868 Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had freed slaves in southern U.S. states, but they still didn't have the same constitutional rights as citizens. That legal limbo led to the formation of 'Colonization Societies' that sought to remove them from the nation-country and send them either to Caribbean islands or to Africa.
Some southern states also enacted 'Black Code' laws in a bid to preserve the rights of slave-owners by calling their slaves 'apprentices' who couldn't be removed from their 'service.'
Ohio Republican Rep. John A. Bingham, a friend of President Lincoln, proposed the amendment to remedy these problems, writing specific language to guarantee that any slave born on American soil would retroactively be declared a citizen.
Bingham wrote at the time that his text wasn't intended to create any new legal rights, but was 'simply a proposition to arm the Congress with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It hath that extent – no more.'
If you read past his introductory remarks, the discussion later continues between several delegates who expressly raise the issue of foreigners (Mongols, gypsies, and aliens, etc.) and each delegate, Sen. Howard included, agree that the operative language concerning "subject to the jurisdiction" covers all of them provided they are born in a territory where the US exercises the enforcement of civil and criminal law.
The 14th amendment was expressly intended to give the rights of citizenship to American slaves, NOT illegal immigrants.
Even permanent legal residents' children weren't intended to get citizenship through birth since they are foreigners and legal aliens, but the Court ruled for in favor of Ark against the Executive. Illegal aliens aren't just foreigners and aliens but illegal. Between 1880 and 1924 well after the 14th amendment, the class of legal and illegal alien was established.
Illegal aliens and their children are subjects of the jurisdiction of their country of origin. "Subject" also means "citizen". The 14th amendment did not include US Indians who were not foreign or alien let alone illegal because they were considered subjects/citizens of their Indian nation but were still "subject" to some degree of US jurisdiction. Blacks were not subjects of any other jurisdiction, while illegal aliens are.
Come on folks it's time to do your homework and research the history of why the 14th Amendment was written.
Do your homework and read the whole discussion - like where Senator Howard later agreed with the other Senators that the language "subject to the jurisdiction" meant anyone who resided in US territory and governed by US law and enforced by US Courts.
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.