Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

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.

A practice that was used during the cold war, specifically with Russia who had an extensive intelligence program that dealt with infiltrating the US by having babies in the US to gain citizenship. Its the long game of political subterfuge.

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

Nothing is being changed. Not one word.

What is changing is the interpretation of who the 14th applies to. It has been shown in this thread the 14th and birthright citizenship was never meant to apply to illegals or foreigners.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Everyone who naturalizes pledges loyalty to the US.

Pledging loyalty isn't the same as government jurisdiction. Citizenship isn't a wedding, where the immigrant promises to submit to the authority of the US government, like a wife to her husband. They were already subject to the jurisdiction of the US before they became a naturalized citizen. The loyalty oath is to the obligation of upholding the Constitution, not promising to subject oneself to the authority and jurisdiction of the USA.

originally posted by: luthier

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]

and you do know it was put into place to bring minorities into the fold as citizens and not property.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Trump is wrong here.

It states rather simply in 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.

-Wiki

Sorry Donny, but you'll lose this fight.

It fits really well with the whole second amendment argument. The 2nd is there for hunting, not for protecting yourself from government oppression. "Knowing that, we need to limit your access to one shotgun locked in a closet and shells dispensed by your local police department. That is the left wing interpretation.

Its never what the constitution says. Its always some ones interpretation. Trump will lose this one I think.

originally posted by: jtrenthacker


I'm not sure where I fall on this. I understand the reasoning behind the decision such as curbing illegal immigration and "anchor babies", but I feel it would open a whole can of worms. I seriously doubt this would ever get pushed through, but you never know.

What's everyone's opinion?

 

Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

Birth right should be tied to your parents as in one of them should be an American. Physical location of the birth should mean nothing. My two sons were born in Japan and so they are not Japanese but American as per their parents. The citizenship by location is antiquated and not needed in today's world.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

Of course that would pave the way to be able to expel even citizens of the US who had lived there for generation's and is a very dangerous move to make or be allowed to make for the US since it would set a precedent and is actually against there founding principles as a nation of migrant's.

Why is that, if one of your parents is an American then you are too no matter where you are born. If you are already a citizen by any of the legal ways to become one then you are still a citizen, once again no matter where you are born. I'm sure if you go back a few 100 years there might have been a reason for physical location of birth for citizenship no matter who your parents were, but I heard the internet was slow back then....

originally posted by: luthier

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.

The case from the 7th circuit up held that particular law, which lays out what illegals / foreign nationals are legally allowed to do and what they cant do.

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

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]

and you do know it was put into place to bring minorities into the fold as citizens and not property.

Since I stated that about 5 pages ago and have been repeating it, that would be a great guess.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

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.

The case from the 7th circuit up held that particular law, which lays out what illegals / foreign nationals are legally allowed to do and what they cant do.

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts

Cool story. I hunt with canadians who bring their guns...they can borrow mine, they can rent them while here etc...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

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]

and you do know it was put into place to bring minorities into the fold as citizens and not property.

Since I stated that about 5 pages ago and have been repeating it, that would be a great guess.

Then why are you trying to use it in an opposing argument? It doesnt support what you are arguing.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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

Nothing is being changed. Not one word.

What is changing is the interpretation of who the 14th applies to. It has been shown in this thread the 14th and birthright citizenship was never meant to apply to illegals or foreigners.

yes it does apply to foreigners, if they have a baby born in America, the baby is an American, that's what the 14th says. the words are clear

Having read this article, heard about this, and looked at the postings the following can be stated:

This is a very dangerous idea, ripe to be abused and ultimately will be exploited, by both parties, both Democrats and Republicans. All of the citizens should reject it, if nothing more than to protect themselves and stop looking at what the politicians are pointing at.

At the heart of the matter is the 14th amendment, and it would be prudent to look at it. In short it addresses the question of who is and is not a citizen of the USA, how many representatives that a state may have, outline what a person who holds an office may not do, and the validity of public debt for the cases of rebellion and insurrection.

And the President is looking at the first section of that amendment, on the citizenship.

There have been different cases concerning the 14th amendment, and the citizenship part would be things like that of the determination of those who were former slaves. However, there is one court case that stands out that would put this into position legally. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, (1898) ruled 6-2 . In this case, Wong, who was born in San Francisco, to Chinese parents, who were living there legally and were not employed by the Chinese government. He went on a trip and then denied re-entry to the US, under a law restricting Chinese immigration, and prohibit immigrants from China from becoming naturalized US citizen. He challenged the governments refusal to recognize his citizenship and won in court.

It came down to 2 ideas, Jus sanguinis and Jus soli. Jus sanguinis is that the parents were or are citizens, and Jus soli, is that the person was in the country and was considered a citizen from place of birth, not by inheritance.

Now I will concede that there is a problem with immigration in this country, that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Personally I think it needs to be a department, with a higher budget and more staffing, along with far more courts, and a system that would allow for a smoother process and a shorter time once the process starts, along with lower fees, than the current system provides now. But this idea is not right nor is it a legal door that any one should want at all.

It is dangerous, and could end up being far more dangerous to all those in the country, who are citizens.

Think about it, how many groups that are in the US, that are considered distasteful, where if the locals could have a legal means to do such, would exercise this and remove them from the city, county, state or country? By removing the citizenship, then what is to stop a president from say removing the citizenship from say a political rival? Or an entire group, or even those in a state? It could be used to say cut out entire population groups or areas, from having the same rights that all other citizens do, or even allow for the removal of the undesirable segments of the population all cause one day they are declared non citizens, all based on political affiliation, or color of skin, or sexual orientation or religious affiliation, even if that person has ancestors that have been in this country for years, going back generation? What is to stop the government from say putting on a restriction where people have to show that say 6 or 7 generations have been US citizens, and if they can not, they lose some rights or are removed?

And what about the Presidents own family? 2 of his 3 wives were immigrants, having children in the US, would they be affected as well? After all at least 4 of the presidents children, their mothers were immigrants, would they be deported as well or find that their citizenship now in question by any changes?


A good majority of the country, all of us have ancestors who immigrated to this country, at various points through the years, and are descended from immigrants ourselves.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

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.

The case from the 7th circuit up held that particular law, which lays out what illegals / foreign nationals are legally allowed to do and what they cant do.

18 USC § 922 - Unlawful acts

Cool story. I hunt with canadians who bring their guns...they can borrow mine, they can rent them while here etc...

Maybe read the law before running your mouth and look ridiculous. Had you done so you would have noticed it refers to nationals of friendly governments with the sole purpose of entering the country for legal hunting and obtaining all required permits to do so. Just as Canadian law prohibits foreign nations from bringing a weapon into their country with the exception of hunting.

Since Canadian arent trying to enter illegally or be in possession of a firearm illegally your point is moot and not applicable to the discussion.

a reply to: luthier

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

Not according to a judge.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

It does because of the process of amendments.

SCOTUS will find it hard to say don't use that part of the amendment.

That isn't there job. You also can't use why ab amendment came to be as an argument of application. Or let's say murder is only a Chinese man and a mexican and we need thousands of court opinions to decide it means to kill each other with malice and intent of harm.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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

Nothing is being changed. Not one word.

What is changing is the interpretation of who the 14th applies to. It has been shown in this thread the 14th and birthright citizenship was never meant to apply to illegals or foreigners.

yes it does apply to foreigners, if they have a baby born in America, the baby is an American, that's what the 14th says. the words are clear

Respectfully read the preceding pages on this discussion. The 14th amendment never applied to Foreign nations nor illegal immigrants until the early 60's.

a reply to: luthier

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

I didn't say anything about prosecuting anyone. Where did you get that?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

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

Not according to a judge.

TheRedneck

A judge. Not legal precedent and his ruling was absurd.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

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.

O... K...

Sorry, I thought you understood what citizenship was... my mistake.

TheRedneck