It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump: Get Rid of Birthright Citizenship

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: charolais

originally posted by: introvert
Does Trump realize that repealing the 14th amendment would create more government waste and bureaucracy, because every single time a child was born the parents would have to establish citizenship for their child with the government?

Would we have to create a new government office to keep track of all of that information?


I agree with you, the irony is laughable.

This goes to all Republicans though... not just Trump. They spout on and on about smaller government, unless it involves their talking points (religion, abortion, immigration, war/foreign policy, etc.).


And don't forget the Patriot Act. They say they want smaller government, then turn around and try to regulate people's personal lives & push for increased militarization of domestic police forces, too (as if police don't work for the government).

And their leaders don't really care about small government or a balanced budget, either. They only shrink the government in areas where they can profit from privatizing it. Which is ironic, since the private sector only makes the costs increase, despite the talking points. And as for all their "balanced budget" crap:



Economist Mike Kimel has noted that the former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness
en.wikipedia.org...

People forget that Clinton left Bush with a federal budget surplus when he left office. But in typical Republican fashion, Bush immediately turned it into a federal deficit again.

As For The OP: Trump's an idiot. Every time I think he can't say something stupider, he does. I'm seriously waiting for him to say he'll nuke Mars to get revenge on the Martians who "abducted" American citizens. Or say he wants a war with the UK since we're tied at 1-1 & "real men don't accept ties".




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: angeldoll

Wouldn't the country of their parents extend citizenship to the child automatically? If not, please refer to Ted Cruz.

I agree with Mr. Trump. One parent should be a citizen of the US.


good point, wonder what Trump thinks about the current Cuban dilemma



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: introvert
Does Trump realize that repealing the 14th amendment would create more government waste and bureaucracy, because every single time a child was born the parents would have to establish citizenship for their child with the government?

Would we have to create a new government office to keep track of all of that information?


Your point?

What you don't want to create a new government office to keep track of the illegals? Why is that?


It would not be a government office that keeps track of illegal immigrants. It would be a government bureaucracy where each and every child would have to apply for citizenship based on the status of their parents. What if you are denied because there is some confusion or mishandled paperwork? Government never gets it wrong, do they?

That is not American in the slightest. If you're born here, you are one of us. I don't care if your parents immigrated illegally or not.

There is also no evidence that shows people immigrate here with the sole purpose of having a child to remain in the US. So this is a solution to a non-problem.


So based on this reasoning, a few that have a hard time getting their paperwork as an actual legal would make you swing the other way? Do legals not have issues all the time with everything already? What's the difference really, other than a possibility of keeping the illegal number down more than it is?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Actually, wouldn't the babies be citizens of their parents' country/countries?

Anyhoo, while I don't think efforts to remove the citizenship clause would work, I understand the why and possible need for it, as it causes many, many moral questions once that baby is born here but its parent(s) have committed a crime and need to be deported.

But this is what happens when amendments are ratified as part of knee-jerk reactions--I get why they included the clause back in 1866, but they failed to consider the problems that would arise from births by illegal immigrants 100+ years later. Personally, I think the amendment could use a little update concerning this issue.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: charolais

This is what makes Trump different than the others - he is a die-hard CEO whose base instinct is to continuously improve through policy adjustment. The US private sector is at least 20 years ahead of the government when it comes to adaptation to market trends and the laws of supply and demand.(no brainer to most folks)

Trump know this, that's the edge he has over the politicians - he has all their bad habits already, but they have none of his drive and determination.

For instance, sitting on the other side of the planet - the debate last week may as well have been the Trump-Kelly show - and Trumps ratings have subsequently proven positive.

No-one has his charisma - he's like the silver-tongued Mohammed Ali or Conor MacGregor who can actually put his money where his mouth is.

Here's the down-side, Trump may not be able to distinguish between a US citizen and an "employee" when it comes time to take the torch and implement is "policies to make America great again", so be very careful what you wish for, by their very nature, successful CEO's are Dictators in every sense of the word and will do and say anything to maintain the blessing of the board of directors and shareholders (elite bloodlines).



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Yep, maybe someone should buy Trump a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Or, with his money, he can buy the real thing!



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: introvert
Does Trump realize that repealing the 14th amendment would create more government waste and bureaucracy, because every single time a child was born the parents would have to establish citizenship for their child with the government?

Would we have to create a new government office to keep track of all of that information?


Your point?

What you don't want to create a new government office to keep track of the illegals? Why is that?


It would not be a government office that keeps track of illegal immigrants. It would be a government bureaucracy where each and every child would have to apply for citizenship based on the status of their parents. What if you are denied because there is some confusion or mishandled paperwork? Government never gets it wrong, do they?

That is not American in the slightest. If you're born here, you are one of us. I don't care if your parents immigrated illegally or not.

There is also no evidence that shows people immigrate here with the sole purpose of having a child to remain in the US. So this is a solution to a non-problem.


So based on this reasoning, a few that have a hard time getting their paperwork as an actual legal would make you swing the other way? Do legals not have issues all the time with everything already? What's the difference really, other than a possibility of keeping the illegal number down more than it is?


This idea would only make sense if they also implemented a massive deportation program as well. What the point if you are not going to deport them ?

I would not support such a program and I think it's damn near impossible.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein

originally posted by: introvert
Does Trump realize that repealing the 14th amendment would create more government waste and bureaucracy, because every single time a child was born the parents would have to establish citizenship for their child with the government?

Would we have to create a new government office to keep track of all of that information?


Your point?

What you don't want to create a new government office to keep track of the illegals? Why is that?


It would not be a government office that keeps track of illegal immigrants. It would be a government bureaucracy where each and every child would have to apply for citizenship based on the status of their parents. What if you are denied because there is some confusion or mishandled paperwork? Government never gets it wrong, do they?

That is not American in the slightest. If you're born here, you are one of us. I don't care if your parents immigrated illegally or not.

There is also no evidence that shows people immigrate here with the sole purpose of having a child to remain in the US. So this is a solution to a non-problem.


So based on this reasoning, a few that have a hard time getting their paperwork as an actual legal would make you swing the other way? Do legals not have issues all the time with everything already? What's the difference really, other than a possibility of keeping the illegal number down more than it is?


This idea would only make sense if they also implemented a massive deportation program as well. What the point if you are not going to deport them ?

I would not support such a program and I think it's damn near impossible.



Who is saying they wouldn't? I think if a government entity was established to handle illegals that would be included....Just a wild guess but I don't think they would say "you are here illegally, oh well we have no deportation program setup yet so just hangout until we figure out what to do with you"...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

But that's exactly what would happen because we do not have the means to round up millions of illegal immigrants and deport them. We couldn't afford it either.

Where would we send them? Would we buy them tickets to their home country, or do we just push them over the southern border and let Mexico deal with it?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
This is an argument that needs historical context.

From the Immigration Policy Center - Myths and Facts About Birthright Citizenship

This is very interesting, and definitely NOT light reading regarding this issue. Here is a quote but it is embedded in the larger context of this extensive document, and specifically within one of the articles. I've only read part of the document as it is very long.

Firstly - the language of, and an explanation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment:


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. 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.
SOURCE


Now a smidgen of the historical context:


Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.‐born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory. Foreign diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity, 12 while lawful enemy combatants enjoy combatant immunity. 13 Accordingly, children born to them are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.


On May 29, 1866, six days after the Senate debate on the addition of the 14th Amendment began, Senator Jacob Howard (R‐MI) proposed language pertaining to citizenship.


Mr. HOWARD. ... This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.”


This was the CONTEXT in which the 14th Amendment was debated. Everyone understood the universality of the application of the Amendment, and it's exclusion, which pertained ONLY to foreign ministers/ambassadors.

The argument over the repeal of the 14th Amendment has ALWAYS had strong elements of xenophobia and racial/ethnic exclusion. Back in the day, the opposition didn't want to grant freed slaves citizenship! They certainly didn't want the Chinese who were here to get full citizenship, nor "gypsies" as they called them, nor any group of people that the Governors would wish to expel from the ranks of their state's citizenry. It's history. Please take a look.



Now explain how the argument today is different? It really isn't, is it? I don't think people realize that they are making these arguments.

I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but history is history, and history is FULL of racism regarding immigration. SOURCE

Access to United States citizenship was restricted by race, beginning with the Naturalization Act of 1790 which refused naturalization to "non-whites". Many in the modern United States forget the institutionalized prejudice against white followers of Roman Catholicism who immigrated from countries such as Ireland, Germany, Italy and France.[156] Other efforts include the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 National Origins Act.[157][158] The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at further restricting the Southern Europeans and Russians who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s.

In conjunction with immigration reform in the late 1980s (seen with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986), there have been noted IRCA-related discriminatory behavior toward Hispanics within employment. As the measure made it unlawful to hire without authorization to work in the United States, avoidant treatment toward "foreign-appearing workers" increased to bypass the required record-keeping or risk of sanctions.[159]




Now is now, and I wish we could just deal with the fact that MOST of our own ancestors came from somewhere else, legally or not so legally. Many of our OWN ancestors would NOT be allow in today! SOURCE

Nativism and racial purism have always been a part of this argument. At one point the Irish were scorned (because they were poor and Catholic), the Italians (similar reason), the Jewish people (religious reason), the Chinese (racial/cultural reason), etc. etc., not to mention the inherent superiority that people apparently felt over African slaves and Native Americans (see the language of the debates sources above in the first document to know what I mean).

This is an OLD story being recycled again and again in US history. So far we have decided to retain the status of Melting Pot, in the hopes of creating a greater country from the whole of our individual parts, than some sort of homogeneous mass of culturally identical people - instead we have pockets of individual cultures held under the umbrella of the United States of America, and I, for one, think we are richer for it.

peace,
AB
edit on 18-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: minor typos



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The Constitution has been trampled on for years, why stop now? Maybe Trump will try the pen and the phone magic too to change immigration and citizenship. Many things Obama has done without Congressional approval and skirted the Constitution.


So, because YOU believe that Obama has done something illegal, it's OK for someone else to do it at the expense of our Constitution???



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: charolais


Lindsey Graham was asked about it, and he said he didn't have a problem with it, and thought it would pass.

I personally find it obscene. We would have generations of displaced, countryless persons. A cruel thing to do to a baby.



I hate to sound overly sensational but history shows that the easiest way to take over a country without violence is by changing the demographic over time.

Hispanics have larger families, statistically, so combine that with the rate of illegal immigration and you can see the future landscape of the United States changing dramatically.



Except no. Something you are leaving out is that within a generation or two of moving here, most people, no matter where they come from end up fully Americanized. They don't have foreign accents, and many can only speak English.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Personally, I think the amendment could use a little update concerning this issue.


Maybe while we're in there mucking around, we could "update" the second amendment. After all, the framers had no idea what a problem guns would become... And then there's the First. It could use a little tweaking as well... Something like defining free exercise of religion as the freedom to worship, pray, attend church, and that's it! No "freedom" to discriminate or force political action based on religion.

Hey... Maybe you have a point...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
What we the people don't know.

This was sent to me.


"The Wizard of Oz" - What it really means!

This appears to be a message to expose the banking cartel in America, and to let the people know that they have the power to 'liquidate' them and get back to Kansas - the real land/republic (Hab 2.6-8).

Here are some of the important points made in this movie in an article by an unknown author:
The Symbolism Hidden Within "THE WIZARD of OZ"
~ author unknown
The "Wizard of Oz", written by L. Frank Baum, is not a mere child's story.
What is "Oz" a symbol for? Ounces.
What is measured in ounces? Gold.
What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.
The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious, ALL CAPS, legal fiction - a PERSON, the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your birth name.
Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A Brain! No juristic person - legal fiction - paper corporation has a brain because he/she has no breath of life.
What did he get in place of a brain? A certificate: a Birth Certificate for a new legal creation.
He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a certificate in place of a grain of common sense.
Now, what about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) recall anything to mind? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul.
He's the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as though he were already dead. He's the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. These days, his task masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a hypnotic television until his very existence no longer has any meaning or value. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotion or feeling that might arise.
The Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he. (Have you ever noticed how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as though they have great courage, but, in reality, have none at all. They roar, but with no teeth of authority to back them up.) When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of "official" recognition. Now, although remaining a coward, his official status allowed him to be a bully, but with officially recognized authority. (He's not unlike the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.) et al ad infinitum.
What about the trip through the field of poppies? Did you notice how this had no narcotic effect on the Straw Man (no brain) or the Tin Man (no heart or soul)? They weren't real people, so drugs could not influence them.

The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged?
The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries.
Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars.
The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?

What was the Emerald City? The Federal Reserve System.
Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was?
Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means "in total, all together; Latin in toto."
What was it that the witch wanted after she alleged that the little dog had bitten her? TOTO. ... everything. Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard's theatrics, yet he was so small in size, compared to the Wizard, that no one seemed to notice him?
The smoke, flames and holographic images of Oz were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard commanded.
Toto simply padded over, looked behind the curtain (the COURT, etc.), saw it was a scam, started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Who was behind the curtain?
Just an ORDINARY PERSON controlling the levers that created the illusion of the Great Wizard's power and authority.
When Toto pulled back the curtain and completely exposed him, the charade was at an end. (The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed.)
The Wizard's game was UP. What was he after all? ... a con-man. A FRAUD.
We can see, in this tale, just how loud the bark from a little dog can be.
How about YOUR bark? How big is it?
Most of us remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, by our legal master.
Let us not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What perfect mythical creatures to represent the Bar Association Attorneys who attack and control the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz: GOLD!
How, finally, was the evil witch destroyed? .... pure, clean water LIQUIDATION!
How, at last, did Dorothy get home? She simply clicked her heels. She always had the power, and SO DO WE!
What would it take to expose the Wizard for what he is, tearing away his veils?
We each need only a brain, a heart and soul --- and COURAGE.
Then, and perhaps of the greatest importance, we need to learn HOW to WORK TOGETHER.
Only "in TOTO," WORKING TOGETHER as ONE Body of the King of Kings, (whatever name or form that may take for each of us), can we have the freedom given under God's Law.

*** end of article ***
The saints need to come out of the accounting/charging system of commerce, and into the forgiving/serving system of cooperation and love. The saints now can and MUST return to the "Garden" (Isa 51.3; 52.8-12)!



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
If the government would enforce the immigration laws we already have, there would not be an issue.
You can't have babies here if your not here to have one.


We don't have the ability to stop them from coming over full stop. The idea that we can close off 1500 some odd miles and have zero people get over is a pipe dream.


edit on thTue, 18 Aug 2015 10:20:03 -0500America/Chicago820150380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Thank you for bringing some historical context to this debate for once. So many wade into this debate without knowing that they are just rehashing old arguments that have been made for centuries, and the rhetoric has NEVER changed. Only the direction of the distrust for foreigners.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   
To everyone above who said the word's "illegal immigrants" you need to start using the real term "illegal aliens"

Immigrants are those who have rightfully worked hard and did the right thing to become citizens of this country. Aliens are those who are criminals and break laws to be here and leech off the system.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: charolais

He should do one better and get rid of ALL citizenship. In a country that respects equal rights, there are residents, and they are equal to citizens.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jewbaca
To everyone above who said the word's "illegal immigrants" you need to start using the real term "illegal aliens"


We don't need to start doing anything. You can be intentionally offensive, if you want.



Immigrants are those who have rightfully worked hard and did the right thing to become citizens of this country.


Look it up. You're wrong. dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I get a chill down my spine whenever someone talks about changing the constitution. It doesn't sit well with me.

I think what is important regarding birthright citizenship is the spirit of the law. When it was written, people were still coming to this country in large numbers from Europe seeking freedom and a chance at a new and better life. The key piece in that action was that they did not sneak into the country in the middle of the night and try to live off the existing residents. They announced themselves, stated their intentions, and were welcomed as American citizens. Once they were here "legally" and recognized as American citizens, it was logical to award citizenship to their children as well.

I am certain our founding fathers never envisioned a time when people would be entering this country under the cover of darkness, at will on a daily basis, and birthing children solely for the purpose of gaining citizenship from a government run amok.

No country was ever made great by people sneaking across its borders in the middle of the night. Many have been destroyed that way, but none made great.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join