Trump: Get Rid of Birthright Citizenship

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Which was done by passing an amendment. By the way, the 21st Amendment is the one that repealed the ban on alcohol. You are thinking about the 18th Amendment.

originally posted by: HomerinNC
Close the borders, dont allow illegals in,

How?

A fence be broken through.

A wall can be tunneled under.

Security could cost hundreds of BILLIONS

How would trucks and trade get through? If not could the USA take the economic hit?

originally posted by: HomerinNC
no more birthright citizenship
case closed.

Still has to go through congress with a 2/3 majority.

a reply to: HomerinNC

How do you close the borders?

We have walls now, they don't work.
We don't 'allow' them in right now, it is just impossible to cover all of that southern border.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So if we get rid of birthright citizenship then the only true citizens of this country would be about 5.2 million people.

Convenient on how and when the definition of legally came about. A country founded on hypocrisy probably deserves what it reaps.

You're really, really going to have to show your work on that math problem...

Native Americans.

He doesn't need to change a thing.

The amandment should be read correctly, there is this conveniently forgotten line in the amendment
"under the jurisdiction thereof" Which would eliminate the illegal aliens right there

The civil rights act of 1866 laid it out who was and was not a citizen also. impeach-andrewjohnson.com...
www.federalistblog.us...
en.wikipedia.org...

The Paid off politicians know very well that a child being born here from non american parents was not what the framers meant when they drafted the Bill of rights.

Basically we have TOO many people being born and not enough desire on the behalf of the "owners of capital" to employ them all for the sake of having a stable and safe civilization to live in day to day. The owners of capital want more people born, not simply for "growing the future tax base", but for the true purpose of DECREASING overall wages for everyone. More people MEANS less jobs and pay per person, affecting even the educated and highly skilled. Its actually quite simple for the peons/peasants of the world to start having more say in how the world is run. Simply don't have children, nor support those having children and oppose all forms of immigration. The result will be soaring wages and diverse employment options expanding for all. The current policy of taxing those without kids, more, is a subconscious way to influence the birth of more kids, by punishing those whom are abstaining from having kids in their own best FINANCIAL interests, whom are also not giving in to the desires for increased population coveted by both government and large corporations.

a reply to: angeldoll

We would have generations of displaced, countryless persons. A cruel thing to do to a baby.

Not necessarily true. Most countries establish citizenship through the citizenship of the parents. What I mean is, for example, I live in Germany, am however an American citizenship. My children are all American citizens on account of me. Even if I don't establish this for them when they are born, they can do it for themselves in the future.

a reply to: 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?

This doesn't have to necessarily be true either—especially in this day and age with our level of technology. I appeal again to my kids. My wife is a German citizen. My kids are also German citizens. We never had to do anything to establish their citizenship here because it's clear in government records that my wife is a German citizen and she passed the citizenship on to them.

I truly doubt that thing on top of Trump's melon is even a legal citizen.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Safety is the biggest excuse and most misused word in government and, subsequently, those who judicate.

I can't send my kid to school wearing a US flag on May 5th, but my Mexican neighbor can send his kid to same school wearing a Mexican flag?

Safety for whom?

Agree 100%

We've only had this current interpretation of the 14th Amendment since the early 80's and the Warren activist SCOTUS said it was 'too hard' to determine if a child was born in the legal jurisdiction of the USA.

Somehow before then, we managed to keep track. Pull up the archives on how that was done.

See also from President Eisenhower's era: Operation Wetback. They could do it, they had the technology. Of course, they also had the testicular fortitude and the cooperation of the Mexican government.

When I lived In Monterrey all of my friends would use their tourist visas and go to America to have their babies. It made me sick.


Its a huge problem that needs to be solved. Hell, people would fly to Mexico from other countries and stay their a while to cross over to america to have their baby. Its not just Mexicans. Its not just poor.


Trump is right in that we let every country in the world take advantage of us. He has my vote.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Can you honestly say that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were standing here today that they would be ok with the idea of people sneaking across the border in the middle of the night,

isn't that what they did? except they didn't just sneak in, they invaded a country that wasn't theirs and took over, are you afraid that's what illegals will do?

I don't recall there ever having been a Native American "country", just a myriad of constantly warring tribes who invaded and slaughtered one other ad nauseum (and took each others' land) for a millennium before the first settler even set foot in Jamestown. A Sioux Indian was just as much of an alien to New England or California as an Englishman would be.

Nobody thinks that what happened to the Indians wasn't sad, but what you're espousing is an extremely naive and idealistic view of history that a lot of people seem to gravitate towards nowadays. The US is not required to open its doors to the entire world restriction-free because of historical spilt milk, because human civilization is not an oppression olympics.

a reply to: charolais

Anchor Babies . A way Around the Law . If Illegals are Deported , then their Families Should Be Together Including the Children... In their Own Country.

Go Trump! just don't be feeding us BS and do what you say...

a reply to: Sremmos80

you catch em, you send em back, no courts. If youre illegal, you go back if youre caught, no waiting, no appeals. goodbye, come back thru the front door LEGALLY, and you will be welcome with open arms

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So if we get rid of birthright citizenship then the only true citizens of this country would be about 5.2 million people.

Convenient on how and when the definition of legally came about. A country founded on hypocrisy probably deserves what it reaps.

You're really, really going to have to show your work on that math problem...

Native Americans.

Shocking how people didn't pick up on this.

It's similar to the UK subject on Immigration, a lot of people say
"we need an Australian Points system to combat immigration"
Pretty sure the Aboriginese weren't the ones who came up with that system, THE IMMIGRANTS are.
Same goes here.

Illegal immigrants from the south are not the only ones having babies in the US just to make them citizens.

Chinese flock to USA to give birth to U.S. citizens

The reasons Chinese women are coming to the US to have babies is much the same as illegal immigrants from the South.
They do this so that when the child is 21, they can sponsor citizenship for their parents. They also do it to get US benefits, such as education.

It would not be as big a deal to amend the constitution as people are saying above. It would simply be a "clarification" of the intention of birthright citizenship. If one parent is a citizen, the child is automatically a citizen. We have amended the constitution before.

Trump is not against immigration, just against ILLEGAL immigration.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I guess the easiest solution is saying that the baby must have 1 parent who is a legal citizen. This one law would prevent the entire thing. Question becomes is it a fair thing to do?

originally posted by: atomadelica

originally posted by: conspiracy nut

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

Can you honestly say that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were standing here today that they would be ok with the idea of people sneaking across the border in the middle of the night,

isn't that what they did? except they didn't just sneak in, they invaded a country that wasn't theirs and took over, are you afraid that's what illegals will do?

I don't recall there ever having been a Native American "country", just a myriad of constantly warring tribes who invaded and slaughtered one other ad nauseum (and took each others' land) for a millennium before the first settler even set foot in Jamestown. A Sioux Indian was just as much of an alien to New England or California as an Englishman would be.

Nobody thinks that what happened to the Indians wasn't sad, but what you're espousing is an extremely naive and idealistic view of history that a lot of people seem to gravitate towards nowadays. The US is not required to open its doors to the entire world restriction-free because of historical spilt milk, because human civilization is not an oppression olympics.

You need to study history then. The Iroquois alone had the Iroquois Confederacy, which was an alliance of 6 different nations. And the Cherokees were forced from their independent nation by the Trail of Tears atrocity you've probably heard of (technically, the Cherokees who stayed & fought are now called the Chickamauga Cherokees). The Seminoles, Muscogee/Creeks, and Chickasaw as well. And these are just off the top of my head.

There were plenty of different tribes, federations & nations. The problem is that the US federal government & the separate States made at least 500 separate treaties with them, then constantly broke their own treaties. They'd send illegal immigrants, aka "settlers", into Native land then help them build settlements. And if the Natives pushed or fought back, the Federal & State governments would intervene militarily.

In fact, the Cherokee Nation won a case in the Supreme Court about this, but Pres Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling. That's when the ethnic cleansing of the Cherokees began.

And let's not forget how Texas formed. American illegal immigrants (settlers, farmers, ranchers, workers, and business men) kept settling in North Eastern Mexico with the help of the US government. Then those settlers seceded, forming the Republic of Texas, which sparked war. Several years later, the US broke its deal with Mexico by accepting the Republic of Texas as a state. This sparked the Mexican-American War.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I am a history major. None of this contradicts what I said in any way. Never once in my post did I say "bad things did not happen to Indians" or that injustices against Natives never took place. Nor that natives did not live in confederacies. All I have said is that the Indians were killing each other and stealing each others' land just as often as the Europeans were doing to them, with the Europeans possessing the ability to do it better then they could, simply put. I was disagreeing with the poster I was replying to's implication that somehow all of the different tribes and factions of pre-Columbian North America was any sort of unified country or nation. You are attacking a strawman.

All you have done is provide evidence of the evils of illegal immigration and nothing more. Particularly the example of the Texan Republic, in which pretty much the exact reverse of what is happening to the US today.

I suggest we not go too much further into this topic to prevent thread-drift, though.

a reply to: NewzNose

I'm pretty sure that only applies to that certain school district. I'd check with your SON'S school first before making that declaration. See that's the beauty of our country. You are whining about ONE school that implemented this policy like it is the ENTIRE nation that has implemented this policy. It isn't. It's one school. If you don't like that school's policies, don't send your kid to that school. If that requires you to move, then so be it.

It's not like the incoming Mexicans are changing your ability to do this or anything. You appear to be coping with it just fine since you are sanely posting on ATS. So clearly, to me, this looks like empty internet rage. Probably brought on by listening to too much conservative news.