Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

originally posted by: je55ejame5

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: je55ejame5

Does this effect his sons,

No.

Made a mistake..edited version. "Does this effect his sons, since they were born before their mother became a citizen or is it just for brown people?"

Kind of disgusting how racist you are. Trump doesn't care about skin color, only legal status. Legal immigrants are in no way effected.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Trump says he wants to "end birth right citizenship". He didn't say anything about illegals, VISA or green card holders, refugees or people here on temporary protection status. Neither does the Constitution.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Except LEGAL immigrants birthright citizenship has already been established (United States v. Wong Kim Ark). So the hysteria from the left is unfounded. The only thing at issue is ILLEGAL immigrants.

Trump has been very clear illegal immigrants are his target.

Some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.

fortune.com...

It's very clear what Trump is doing unless you wish to believe and propagate fake news.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Uh, the constitution?

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.

a reply to: KlondikeCamerry

Which does not specify illegal immigrants are covered. It has never gone before the courts either. So ... not sure what your argument is exactly.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: KlondikeCamerry

Which does not specify illegal immigrants are covered. It has never gone before the courts either. So ... not sure what your argument is exactly.

What part do you not understand about 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.

I say we do it. Lets give the President the authority to rewrite the constitution via EO. Republicans can even have first shot at it. Then when Democrats are in power we can open borders to all, institute poll tests in red states, require confiscation and destruction of all guns, and eradicate the fake media like Breitbart, Fox, and Infowars.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is my understanding the 14th was adopted in 1868, specifically to benefit former slaves and their children. I agree with you 100% it now rewards illegal behavior.

a reply to: KlondikeCamerry

What part do you not understand the 14th was never ever meant to apply to illegals crossing the border to have anchor babies. It has never been declared by the courts to mean what you want it to mean. Trump is saying legal immigrants are covered and illegals are not as the US has not accepted them under their jurisdiction. It is NOT how I want this to be done, but it's an interesting argument and your the sky is falling routine is not fooling anyone but yourself.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I say we do it. Lets give the President the authority to rewrite the constitution via EO.

What is being rewritten. What is the current wording, what will be the new wording?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: KlondikeCamerry

What part do you not understand the 14th was never ever meant to apply to illegals crossing the border to have anchor babies. It has never been declared by the courts to mean what you want it to mean. Trump is saying legal immigrants are covered and illegals are not as the US has not accepted them under their jurisdiction. It is NOT how I want this to be done, but it's an interesting argument and your the sky is falling routine is not fooling anyone but yourself.

What part of the English language do you not understand?

Section 1. 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.

The source is the US Constitution. Either you stand for it or you are against it. Which side are you on? Oh, the side that wants to make up new meanings for things that are very clear, and written in English. Que Hablo senior? Nada/

originally posted by: KlondikeCamerry

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: KlondikeCamerry

What part do you not understand the 14th was never ever meant to apply to illegals crossing the border to have anchor babies. It has never been declared by the courts to mean what you want it to mean. Trump is saying legal immigrants are covered and illegals are not as the US has not accepted them under their jurisdiction. It is NOT how I want this to be done, but it's an interesting argument and your the sky is falling routine is not fooling anyone but yourself.

What part of the English language do you not understand?



The source is the US Constitution. Either you stand for it or you are against it. Which side are you on? Oh, the side that wants to make up new meanings for things that are very clear, and written in English. Que Hablo senior? Nada/

Section 1. 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.

At what point has the US subjected them to the jurisdiction of the US? They are here illegally NOT subject to the US jurisdiction. If they were that would result in deportation.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: KlondikeCamerry

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: KlondikeCamerry

What part do you not understand the 14th was never ever meant to apply to illegals crossing the border to have anchor babies. It has never been declared by the courts to mean what you want it to mean. Trump is saying legal immigrants are covered and illegals are not as the US has not accepted them under their jurisdiction. It is NOT how I want this to be done, but it's an interesting argument and your the sky is falling routine is not fooling anyone but yourself.

What part of the English language do you not understand?

Section 1. 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.

The source is the US Constitution. Either you stand for it or you are against it. Which side are you on? Oh, the side that wants to make up new meanings for things that are very clear, and written in English. Que Hablo senior? Nada/

At what point has the US subjected them to the jurisdiction of the US? They are here illegally NOT subject to the US jurisdiction. If they were that would result in deportation.

Uh, the discussion is about people born here. Try and keep up.

originally posted by: KlondikeCamerry

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: KlondikeCamerry

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: KlondikeCamerry

What part do you not understand the 14th was never ever meant to apply to illegals crossing the border to have anchor babies. It has never been declared by the courts to mean what you want it to mean. Trump is saying legal immigrants are covered and illegals are not as the US has not accepted them under their jurisdiction. It is NOT how I want this to be done, but it's an interesting argument and your the sky is falling routine is not fooling anyone but yourself.

What part of the English language do you not understand?

Section 1. 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.

The source is the US Constitution. Either you stand for it or you are against it. Which side are you on? Oh, the side that wants to make up new meanings for things that are very clear, and written in English. Que Hablo senior? Nada/

At what point has the US subjected them to the jurisdiction of the US? They are here illegally NOT subject to the US jurisdiction. If they were that would result in deportation.

Uh, the discussion is about people born here. Try and keep up.

Uh, no. It is settled law that parents not subject to the jurisdiction of the US do not convey citizenship on their children who are born in the US.

So the problem is you are a child trying to understand a grown up discussion.

Hint, diplomats in the US who have a child in the US, their children are NOT US citizens. Learn a little.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
What is being rewritten. What is the current wording, what will be the new wording?

Does any of that matter? It's a question over if the President has the authority to issue EO's to modify the Constitution or not. The Constitution itself pretty clearly establishes that the President does not have that power, but the court could grant it if they wanted.

Do you think the President should have this power?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


If "illegal" immigrants weren't subject to the jurisdiction/authority of the US Government, they wouldn't be illegal.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's very clear what Trump is doing unless you wish to believe and propagate fake news.

Yes, it's clear. Trump wants to fundamentally change the opening line of the 14th Amendment.

The source is the US Constitution. Either you stand for it or you are against it. Which side are you on? Oh, the side that wants to make up new meanings for things that are very clear, and written in English. Que Hablo senior? Nada/

Technically, the source is an Amendment to the Constitution....but

Senator Jacob Howard, the AUTHOR of the 14th Amendment, has already clarified the INTENT of the Amendment:

"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."

Trump is simply putting it back to the INTENT in the first place.

Does any of that matter? It's a question over if the President has the authority to issue EO's to modify the Constitution or not

No, the EO only spurs Congress to action. It doesn't instantly modify the Constitution. (nor was it intended to). Trump's EO was simply the greenlight (then the torch passed to Congress to introduce legislation to change it...though clarify it, may be a better phrase).

a reply to: Gazrok

It seems to me the intent clearly excludes the families of foreign dignitaries, but certainly doesn't exclude visitors, refugees, asylum seekers or illegal aliens.