Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Progressive policies work on gradual incremental changes where the sum of changes are aim towards achieving a major paradigm shift.
If you cant see this is part of that occurring then it has to be you who is the bobblehead.

a reply to: yuppa

Along with permanent removal of the ability to ever come legally and any children you have on American soil are not US citizens. That is what needs to happen. Along with changing immigrant laws to allow more temporary visas for seasonal work (who also can't have US children as babies).

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Yes fixing a huge problem is ending the world. Go spend all your savings and quit your job, it's all over.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Census doesn't tell the government Illegal Matt is living at X address for you to deport.

For me to deport? I don't do the deporting, the government does.

The government has jurisdiction over everyone, citizen or not, documented or not. The census tells us how many people are living where, not their class or citizenship status.

Knowledge a person exists is required.

The moment a government official comes in contact with an individual, their existence is known, while their status may not be, and the government has jurisdiction over that individual.

And what you are saying is MEANINGLESS.

Maybe, because it's me. But, what I'm saying is what legal scholars on both sides have been saying for over 100 years. Anyone born on US soil, except for the families of dignitaries assigned here by their governments, is a citizen of the USA. This is a precedent. There is no precedent for what Trump is proposing.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: yuppa

Along with permanent removal of the ability to ever come legally and any children you have on American soil are not US citizens. That is what needs to happen. Along with changing immigrant laws to allow more temporary visas for seasonal work (who also can't have US children as babies).

Bingo!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It's like you saying you will be responsible for all children in your house. A pedo sneaks a kid into your house while you sleep, you have no clue they are there, he rapes the kid, and you are responsible even though you did not let them in or even know they were there. What jurisdiction are you exerting over them .. none.

Jesus Christ on a surfboard! That's not what I'm saying at all! How can you compare an undocumeted immigrant giving birth to a pedophile rapist?!

That's really disturbing news! I had no idea that illegals were giving birth to pedophile rapists! I don't want my tax dollars supporting the welfare of these evil kids! I sure hope Trump gets illegal immigration under control before these heathens grow up!

Sorry.. couldn't resist.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, immigrants will not be discriminated against. Illegal immigrants will be subject to the law.

What law? A new law? How can they be subject to the "law" when they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US government, according to you? LOL

Trump said, "No other country has birthright citizenship.....where an illegal immigrant can give birth, and that baby becomes a citizen for 85 years......" He was wrong, lots of other countries have birthright citizenship. But, his statement affirms that we do, in fact, have that law. He said "That has to change." Affirming the fact that he wants to change the 14th Amendment of the Constitutional, and the birthright law it sets.

a reply to: Anathros


LOL. How unfortunate!

How's this: Jesus Christ on a surfboard! That's not what I'm saying at all! How can you compare a pedophile rapist to an undocumented immigrant giving birth?!

Better?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No the current law that simply has never been enforced.

The law is not changing, the enforcing of the law is changing.

originally posted by: SookiechachaThere is no precedent for what Trump is proposing.

There is no precedent either way, the courts have never heard it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No the current law that simply has never been enforced.

Nonsense. Immigration law is enforced everyday. Every time a baby is born on US, the granting of US citizenship is the enforcement of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

The law is not changing, the enforcing of the law is changing.

Trump clearly said that birthright citizenship in the US must stop. That's calling for a change in constitutional law.

The courts have never heard it, because for over 100 years, nobody has ever denied a baby born un US soil citizenship, for any reason other than they belong to the family of foreign dignitaries, here on behalf of their won government. The children of undocumented immigrants have been granted US citizenship for over 100 years. That's precedence.

We need a court-mandated remedial approach to understanding the wording of the 14th Amendment.

Obviously, there is a common sense argument for what President Trump is putting forth. It deserves to be addressed, and it will be. I believe it will go to the Supreme Court, and rightfully so.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Or it is the non-enforcement of it.

Yes, giving them citizenship when the Constitution says we should not means the granting of it needs to stop. Almost no country in the Western World does it, and we need to stop doing it against the Constitution. That is his message.

We will see if the courts agree.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, immigrants will not be discriminated against. Illegal immigrants will be subject to the law.

What law? A new law? How can they be subject to the "law" when they aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US government, according to you? LOL

Trump said, "No other country has birthright citizenship.....where an illegal immigrant can give birth, and that baby becomes a citizen for 85 years......" He was wrong, lots of other countries have birthright citizenship. But, his statement affirms that we do, in fact, have that law. He said "That has to change." Affirming the fact that he wants to change the 14th Amendment of the Constitutional, and the birthright law it sets.

I'm not a constitutional attorney but yes, children born in America to illegal immigrants have always been accepted as citizens. My previous understanding of the 14th Amendment stated such which lead to my earlier confusion believing the Constitution would be amended. That isn't the case and the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to illegal immigrants' children. It's already been ruled on.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case. A ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

Regardless of what anyone believes, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. The Constitution isn't changing at all. An Executive Order from Trump doesn't work though. This has be done by Congress as it states here:

[Section 5. of the 14th Amendment:
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment]

All it would take is for Congress to establish a rule of uniform naturalization to end the abuse of an Amendment ratified in 1868 for recently freed slaves and their children and not as a reward for illegal immigration.

a reply to: Anathros

I already quoted that court ruling and showed how they specified the parents being legal residents was important. The response was it doesn't matter what they say basically.

I hate this being done with an EO, Congress should act.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Anathros

I already quoted that court ruling and showed how they specified the parents being legal residents was important. The response was it doesn't matter what they say basically.

I hate this being done with an EO, Congress should act.

Trump should've held their feet to the fire long before the mid-terms. Nothing ever gets accomplished when the Senate and House are controlled by separate parties. The only thing more embarrassing than my previous understanding of the 14th Amendment is that this "no-brainer" issue hasn't been dealt with by Congress already.

a reply to: Anathros


This is someone's opinion of the ruling and a rule of law. If it was, we wouldn't have been giving anyone born on US soil citizenship all these years.

Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

Link please.

This is a fallacy. Plenty of undocumented immigrants have housing. It's perfectly legal, also, for non-citizen, non residents to own property in the USA, so it's conceivable that undocumented families could even own their homes, own legal, tax paying businesses and have legal mortgages. In fact, many do. I read about a man who owned his home and business, had a American wife and 3 American kids who was recently deported.

Also, in 1886, when the ruling was made, there were no VISAs, no work permits, no illegal immigrants. The only people that were not allowed into the USA, at that time, were criminals, the insane or people unable to take care of themselves.
en.wikipedia.org...

1886, Wong Kim Ark was a victim of the Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882, and was unable to re-enter the USA after taking a trip to China. Since he was already a US citizen, he was exempt from the Act.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I already quoted that court ruling and showed how they specified the parents being legal residents was important.

There was no such thing as legal and illegal immigrants then. They looked at the established residency of the ARK family. Lots of illegal immigrants today have established residency and proven allegiance to the USA.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You can not legally reside in the US if you are not here legally. I have already cited the court case in question. It was ruled that the person was a US citizen because their parents were LEGAL residents with a LEGAL domicile.

In it, the majority held that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were lawful, permanent residents who were “domiciled” in the U.S. at the time of his birth in San Francisco in 1873.

www.forbes.com...

So what illegal is a lawful permanent resident that is domiciled?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Living is not illegal. Trespassing is a misdemeanor. Trespassing is the only crime an undocumented immigrant is guilty of. Living is not a crime.