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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: TrueBrit

Are you threatening to assassinate Trump?


BTW - El Chapo is...After Trumps Tirade about Mexicans being rapists and murderers El Chapo tweeted "If you keep p****** me off I'm going to make you eat your words you f****** blonde milk-s*****'. "
www.dailymail.co.uk... ock-tunnel.html

Trump immediately asked for protection from the FBI.

El Chapo is a fellow Billionaire..in cash not on paper...and makes his living killing people in painful ways.

If Trump ever disappears and we find a collapsed hole beneath his shower and a mile long tunnel to his mansion, we will know what happened.




posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Are you serious?

I am pointing out that SOMEONE will likely shoot hm, not suggesting that I am about to do the job.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Well I think it would be debatable since we really don't know what the people that were already in what is now the united states had to say about it.

You think they didn't have some set of their own borders?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
This again? Anyone entering our country illegally is a criminal and needs to be rounded up and sent back to where they came from. It is the law. If they reproduce while here...their offspring should be sent back with them. No reason to break up a family. And when we get a government that actually FOLLOWS the laws, this should not only be done, but should be retroactive to any illegals that have not become legal through the process set in place BY law.

Criminals should never be permitted to benefit from their crimes. Build the wall...man it with guards and live ammo...and undo the damage they, and the corrupt government that not only allows it...but promotes it, have done.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: charolais

Umm no. New Zealand changed the law because if a child was born to a tourist visiting the country the kid become a citizen. Years down the track if the kid got sick the parents could come back to New Zealand and receive health care without having paid for it via their taxes.

You can still be a citizen if you are born in New Zealand and your parents don't take you straight out of the country. The others ways are if one of your parents is a New Zealand Citizen or you become Naturalised.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: xpert11

Ohh ok I see.

So if a child was born to a tourist was the child automatically a New Zealand citizen, or was it an option?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: charolais


From what I remember from college . The Birth right citizenship constitutionally from the 14th was for a child who was born any where when one parent or another was a US citizen or had legal status to be in the US. It was the old INS that started the illegal immigrants or any one passing threw the USA who gives birth on US soil that child is automatically a US Citizen .

What he is proposing is to cut the bureaucratic rules enacted by a government entity with out a legislative bill backing it and follow the constitution.

You see slaves were lawfully here in US where as illegal immigrant as are not lawfully here and subjects of a foreign government.

Is there another country in the world you can illegally sneak in drop a baby get citizenship for baby and visa rights for the rest of the family ?



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel




You cant accuse our founding fathers of sneaking across borders that didn't exist.



Many tribes had considered certain boundaries as theirs. The Iroquois confederation considered most of Pa and NY as theirs tribes had wars over boundaries even.

The boundaries existed and Anglo Saxons ignored them and over powered the Native Americans and the rest is history. Actually the white encroachment on Native land caused many of the Indian wars.



posted on Aug, 20 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: atomadelica
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.


You didn't say that at all. LOL If you did, I wouldn't have responded. This is what you actually said:


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

This is specifically why I picked out the examples I used, because they totally contradict what you actually typed. The Iroquois Confederacy was 6 separate "countries" that worked together as a confederacy, not 6 warring tribes attacking, invading, and slaughtering one another. Their legal documents were even influential with the Founding Fathers. lol



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: charolais
a reply to: xpert11

Ohh ok I see.

So if a child was born to a tourist was the child automatically a New Zealand citizen, or was it an option?


There wasn't an option . I think they would have been eligible for a New Zealand Passport . I am Australian born and I lived in New Zealand for 16 years. Now I was born before the cut off year so if I want to I could apply for an Australian Passport . I gained my New Zealand citizenship via my mother.

See for yourself. (Note on the Cook Islands ) I didn't mention the Cook Island's Free Association with New Zealand in my original post because I wanted to stay topical.



posted on Aug, 21 2015 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Considering the people of the US seem to enjoy finding the worse possible leader and electing them twice, I wonder how long it will be before the good people of the US will have to give worship to a 100 foot statue of DT every morning, singing praise to the great leader



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
The anchor baby policy is not only absurd, but contrary to the wording and intent of the 14th amendment.


The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "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."
-Wikipedia

Those words in italics would be superfluous if the congress had intended for anyone born in the geographic United States to be granted automatic citizenship. Remove those six words, and then the anchor baby policy would be constitutional.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not apply to every human being currently located in the geographic United States. There are two types of people subject to US jurisdiction: US citizens, and children born to US citizens.

The 14 amendment does not need to be altered...unless we want to legalize the anchor baby policy.

Interesting side note - Mexico's constitution specifically says that children of Mexican citizens are also Mexican citizens, regardless of where they are born. That being the case, it is doubly impossible for a Mexican child to be subject to US jurisdiction.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: imod02
Considering the people of the US seem to enjoy finding the worse possible leader and electing them twice, I wonder how long it will be before the good people of the US will have to give worship to a 100 foot statue of DT every morning, singing praise to the great leader


If The Donald has anything to say about it, we'll also pay for the privilege of obeisance.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
There is no need to repeal or modify the 14th Amendment

US vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) was about the child of legal Chinese immigrants, who had yielded to the jurisdiction of the USA in order to legally work on the railroads.

INS vs Rios Pineda (1985) was not about citizenship. It dealt with deportation laws.

SCOTUS has never delivered a ruling concerning the status of children born to illegal aliens.

In the end it is very simple. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means that the person has pledged allegiance to, or has at least yielded their legal standing to the regional authority. In the case of illegal aliens, they have not pledged allegiance to or yielded their standing to the USA. Children inherit the legal standing of their parents. Therefore the children of illegal alien parents do not gain any citizenship to the USA, neither the 14th Amendment nor the SCOTUS apply here. At least not yet.

And if the SCOTUS were to rule in favor of the illegal alien and anchor babies, we would truly have an illegitimate judiciary with no interest in the rule of law.

edit on 22-8-2015 by Teikiatsu because: added to the end



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
There is no need to repeal or modify the 14th Amendment

US vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) was about the child of legal Chinese immigrants, who had yielded to the jurisdiction of the USA in order to legally work on the railroads.

INS vs Rios Pineda (1985) was not about citizenship. It dealt with deportation laws.

SCOTUS has never delivered a ruling concerning the status of children born to illegal aliens.

In the end it is very simple. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means that the person has pledged allegiance to, or has at least yielded their legal standing to the regional authority. In the case of illegal aliens, they have not pledged allegiance to or yielded their standing to the USA. Children inherit the legal standing of their parents. Therefore the children of illegal alien parents do not gain any citizenship to the USA, neither the 14th Amendment nor the SCOTUS apply here. At least not yet.

And if the SCOTUS were to rule in favor of the illegal alien and anchor babies, we would truly have an illegitimate judiciary with no interest in the rule of law.


Excellent post, well-thought out, backed up with facts, and speaking clearly to the subject!

Glad to give my first star to you for this post!



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lostinthedarkness

While not exactly an answer to your question, I had to think of something that happened to some friends of mine while they were studying in the States.

They were studying at a seminary in Texas and while there had a child. They were both German citizens. According to German law, their daughter was (supposed!) to be a German citizen, since German citizenship is only passed through the parents.

Well, they had to fight tooth and nail in order to get their daughter a German passport because the German government didn't want to recognize her as a German! (As I recall I think it had something to do with their daughter "automatically" being an American. Since they were only in the States as students, they actually had to do paperwork to retroactively make their daughters American citizenship void...which is sort of strange now that I am thinking about it.)

In a sense, their situation is like the anti-answer to your question. Some countries are too lax with citizenship law while others are maybe too overprotective--not wanting to bestow citizenship where it is due!



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Its obvious to those with common sense what birthright is suppose to mean. Its being taken advantage of and has been for a long time and needs to to be corrected.

Just being in the US and popping out a kid, does not equal winning the US Citizen lotto , if you are being honest with yourself you cant believe that is how it works, or should work.

Its like saying the baby came early and the closest hospital was a Methodist Hospital and now your kid must be Methodist as their religion for life sorry should have left 20min earlier to make it to the "other" hospital.

But all this mean nothing as the elites do not care, otherwise the border issue would not be a border issue in the first place, their kids dont go to school and shop at the same grocery stores they shop, etc. I think they truly believe its not a big deal at all as they get cheap labor for their maids and lawn service is the only interaction they ever see.

You come here legally and start off doing the right thing from day one, I have absolutely no problem at all with your kid going to schools I pay taxes for.







 
20
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join