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 Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

page: 14
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Hell yeah all you constitutional Patriots must love supporting this, changing the sacred and worshipped """constitution""" with Executive Orders

Not even Obama was a big enough Patriot to do this
edit on 30-10-2018 by XAnarchistX because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier
Who does birthright citizenship apply to in 2018? Nationals children?


The children of mothers who give birth while in the country legally? IOW...mothers who have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the U.S?


So natural citizens children?

That is what you mean. It applies to Americans who have kids?


I said mothers who are in the country legally.

My dad lived in the U.S. for 20 years on a green card and never became a citizen. But he was here legally.


Well then the China and Russia problem being cited makes no sense most are here legally.


I don't even know what you are talking about, now.

What China and Russia problem?


The problem cited by trump and many which is real are citizens from hostile countries like China and Russia can get a Visa and have a kid and they become citizens..so spies for instance.





Ah. Well, I don't agree that is a problem that can be addressed by narrowing our nationality laws.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


There is no other way to interpret if you are born here you get citizenship.

That's not what it says.

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: constitutionus.com...

You keep ignoring that part about being subject to legal jurisdiction thereof.

Every citizen has, in one way or another, subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the US. Those who were naturalized did so voluntarily; those born here did so by virtue of their parents' subjection. Illegal immigrants, by definition, do not; they enter illegally, which is the exact opposite of subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction of the US.

Now, that said, once citizenship is granted I see no way it can be forcefully removed... so every illegal immigrant who managed to get citizenship through a misinterpretation is still a citizen. Nothing that can be done about that, nor do I think anything needs to be done about it.


There is no way to differentiate in the amendment, and by the way Congress can actually pass laws about immigration which would clarify the 14th.

The argument was that Trump was overstepping his authority by signing an EO. If he cannot sign an EO that fills in gaps in the Constitution, neither can Congress pass a law that does so. While Congressionally passed law overrides any EO, EOs serve the same purpose as you claim the law does, except they are subservient to passed laws as well as to the Constitution.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Who does birth right citizenship apply to today?

Anyone born to parents with citizenship or who have subjected themselves to the legal jurisdiction of the US.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Hell yeah all you constitutional Patriots must love supporting this, changing the sacred and worshipped """constitution""" with Executive Orders

Not even Obama was a big enough Patriot to do this


You missed the EO closing the 'gun show' loop hole,Gun Trusts, and importation of 'bad' gunz.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,


It says nothing about the individual's responsibility to actively or overtly "subject themselves" to the jurisdiction, i.e., authority of the US government. The US government takes it. We don't give it. Except for foreign diplomats and leaders and Native American nations, everyone within its borders is subject to US jusrisdiction, whether they like it or not. No one standing on US soil can opt out of the US government's authority and jurisdiction over them.



edit on 30-10-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier


Who does birth right citizenship apply to today?

Anyone born to parents with citizenship or who have subjected themselves to the legal jurisdiction of the US.

TheRedneck


I suppose you read this part as well


The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The 39th Congress proposed the principle underlying the Citizenship Clause due to concerns expressed about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act during floor debates in Congress.[1][2] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment sought to entrench the principle in the Constitution in order to prevent its being struck down by the Supreme Court or repealed by a future Congress.[2][3]



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


People don't subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are automaticaly subject to the authority and repercussions of violating, US law the moment they step on, or are born on, US soil. The USA has authority/jusidiction over everyone within its borders.

They certainly do.

Everyone who naturalizes pledges loyalty to the US. Everyone living in the US at the time of the signing of the Constitution subjected themselves to jurisdiction and that acceptance is passed from generation to generation.

It is also possible to cancel that subjugation by denouncing citizenship, something the US has overlooked for some time.

This is not about whether or not the laws can be used against someone; it is about that someone making a conscious choice to subject themselves to the jurisdiction or having that subjugation automatically transferred via their parents.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

Obama did change law through EO though. Remember DACA?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Which means a constitutional amendment, nothing else, or less.

As it should be. Dangerous path to tread, imnsho.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


It says nothing about the individual's responsibility to actively or overtly "subject themselves" to the jurisdiction, i.e., authority of the US government. The US government takes it. We don't give it.

Our forefathers did. We have the right to remove it by denouncing citizenship. If we do not do so, we are accepting the jurisdiction of the US.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: XAnarchistX

Obama did change law through EO though. Remember DACA?

TheRedneck


Right and it's not an amendment and can be undone with another EO.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha


It says nothing about the individual's responsibility to actively or overtly "subject themselves" to the jurisdiction, i.e., authority of the US government. The US government takes it. We don't give it.

Our forefathers did. We have the right to remove it by denouncing citizenship. If we do not do so, we are accepting the jurisdiction of the US.

TheRedneck


Prosecuting someone for denouncing America would be hard to do without violating their free speech, and 4th amendment rights.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

and illegal aliens foreign nationals in the US are prohibited from owning a firearm. Just as the law in question states and as the 7th circuit affirmed.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


There are plenty of US citizens sitting in jail right now, who tried to denounce the government's authority over them through flexing their "sovereign citizenship" rights and refusal to pay taxes.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha

and illegal aliens foreign nationals in the US are prohibited from owning a firearm. Just as the law in question states.


Nope just buying them.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

He said people born here. That means you and me probably. Me for sure. I don't know where you were born.



Yeah... That's what Trump REALLY means... The secret is out...



Why don't some people use common sense anymore?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Um that part does and there is no way around it. The group of people the law was written for does not matter. Nor are the laws written that way. The event that caused the law doesnt have that much to do with its interpretation when they are amendments written to strengthen natural law. Which many of you forget was oir founders intent.

Who does birthright citizenship apply to in 2018? Nationals children?

That is seriously your argument?




My argument that is also supported by everything dealing with legalities on the topic up until the early 1960's.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Xcathdra

Um that part does and there is no way around it. The group of people the law was written for does not matter. Nor are the laws written that way. The event that caused the law doesnt have that much to do with its interpretation when they are amendments written to strengthen natural law. Which many of you forget was oir founders intent.

Who does birthright citizenship apply to in 2018? Nationals children?

That is seriously your argument?




My argument that is also supported by everything dealing with legalities on the topic up until the early 1960's.


Not at all.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha

and illegal aliens foreign nationals in the US are prohibited from owning a firearm. Just as the law in question states.


So are minors, medical pot users, wife beaters, felons, and people diagnosed with mental illness. SCOTUS ruled that the government has the right to limit 2nd Amendment rights of certain individuals, and grant them to others, like immigrant police officers and foreign government conractors.


Doesn't change the fact that they are still under the jurisdiction of the US government.



edit on 30-10-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
20
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join