Trump plans to end citizenship for children of immigrants born in US

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
The first part of the Amendment says "All persons born in the United States" which would make the second part redundant if it meant the same thing, So it clearly has a different meaning that legal scholars will have to weight in on.

Also, if you want to see how racists a lot of Democrats really are, just watch them when black voters in the US start talking about voting for Republicans :)
Click to expand...
The stormfront constitutional scholar
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
brewbeer said:
If you are within the borders of the United States, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...
You're not a lawyer and able to interpret law based on a dictionary definition you agree with.The Supreme court over 134 years ago says you're wrong!

"Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:"

http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies
 
mauricem00

mauricem00

Well-Known Member
Buddha2525 said:
You libtards are dumb as rocks. The 14th amendment was only for giving freed slaves citizenship. The proof is the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act. If the 14th amendment includes everyone born on American soil becomes a citizen, why weren't Indians who were born here for thousands of years before any white man not considered citizens until 1924, and not given the right to vote until 1957?
Click to expand...
perhaps because they were considered a separate nation.and controlled half this country at the time the 14th amendment was passed if you had an education you would know this. use of works like "libtards" gives proof of your ignorance and hatred.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
mauricem00 said:
perhaps because they were considered a separate nation.and controlled half this country at the time the 14th amendment was passed if you had an education you would know this. use of works like "libtards" gives proof of your ignorance and hatred.
Click to expand...
Nope. Still not a lawyer, but congrats on keeping your libtard status.

"Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.""
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
squarepush3r said:
seems fairly straightforward, there is an AND that says the persons must also be subject to the jurisdiction, which illegal aliens arguably are not. Its perfectly within the constitution framework.

Click to expand...
You can't even explain what you highlighted. The birth on USA soil gives puts them in jurisdiction. We not talking about the parents. Why are Trump supporters so damn stupid
 
Moldy

Moldy

Well-Known Member
blake9999 said:
President Donald Trump is planning to sign an executive order that would seek to end the right to U.S. citizenship for children of noncitizens born on U.S. soil, he said in a television interview taped on Monday.

The move, which many legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution, would be the boldest yet by a president elected to office pledging to take a hard line on immigration, an issue he has revived in advance of next week's midterm elections.

"We're 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 for 85 years with all of those benefits," Trump said during an interview with Axios scheduled to air as part of a new HBO series starting this weekend. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."

Trump, who has long decried "anchor babies," said he has discussed the move with his legal counsel and believes it can be accomplished with executive action, a view at odds with the opinions of many legal scholars.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump told Axios.

When told that view is disputed, Trump asserted: "You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

"It's in the process. It'll happen . . . with an executive order," he said, without offering a time frame.

The move would be certain to spark a constitutional debate about the meaning of the 14th Amendment. It reads: “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.”
Click to expand...
Another distraction and ginning up his base at the same time. His executive order would be overturned in a heartbeat.
 
Buddha2525

Buddha2525

Well-Known Member
brewbeer said:
You don’t know if I’m an attorney or not. And you apparently don’t know that the 1873 decision was followed by a SCOTUS decision 25 years later affirming the intent of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
If you were a lawyer you'd know what the original language meant at drafting, even if you don't agree, and despite its PC reinterpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top