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: 16
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


Because to take away citizenship the law has to have an executable path. How do you prove it and at what cost to their due process rights before proven guilty?




posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Lol scotus cant tell anyone to stop using part of an amendment. What they are doing is saying the words in this part of the amendment refer to / apply to.

The 14th amendment i valid, lawful and Constitutional. Misinterpreting the 14th amendment to cover something that was never done in the past is the problem.

It does not apply to illegal aliens / foreign nationals.

That is what is to be clarified - that it in fact does not apply to those 2 groups.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


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.

The Constitution is the authority and jurisdiction of the US, along with the laws enacted under it.

Do you seriously not get that? Civics? First week? Chapter 1 in the textbook?

You are confusing a lack of criminality with citizenship.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.


Well except those spies we talked about earlier. They are usually here legally with permits.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.


The District court ruling and the 7th circuit affirming that ruling can be used in the 14th amendment argument. By upholding the law that allows for illegal aliens / foreign nationals to be denied firearms and prosecuted for possession of them shows there are limits to what covers those 2 groups.

Birthright citizenship is the same argument.

Neither amendment was designed to grant illegals / foreign nationals the same status of US citizens (exception being criminal law, which requires al persons to be treated equally and is also in place by UN treaties we have signed).



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS


My opinion? Trump is signaling his base and the idea is utterly pointless. Its pointless because it will be litigated and found to be unconstitutional and as a result this is all just a waste of time.


It’s telling that Trump signals his base by being unconstitutional.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


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

Until and unless overturned, a decision by a judge is legal precedent. That's what legal precedent is.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Lol scotus cant tell anyone to stop using part of an amendment. What they are doing is saying the words in this part of the amendment refer to / apply to.

The 14th amendment i valid, lawful and Constitutional. Misinterpreting the 14th amendment to cover something that was never done in the past is the problem.

It does not apply to illegal aliens / foreign nationals.

That is what is to be clarified - that it in fact does not apply to those 2 groups.



Uh,..no that is Congress's job. There will be whether or not it can be interpreted any other way.

I guess you don't get the difference.

If it is for slaves,...it needs to be changed....there would be no application it applied to today.

How do you prove a part of the amendment doesnt apply any more?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.


Well except those spies we talked about earlier. They are usually here legally with permits.


With no loyalty to the US government and present for means of espionage. Applying the 14th amendment the correct way would still prevent their child from being a US citizen.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Legal precedent is also the weight of prior cases, it already is being challenged when it will be scheduled is the question.

Again this is a Congress problem. All of it. It's all the same issue with little legal tricks being tried to stretch federal executive authority. It isn't new.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Because to take away citizenship the law has to have an executable path. How do you prove it and at what cost to their due process rights before proven guilty?



What does law enforcement have to do with denouncing citizenship? It cannot be illegal, because that would violate individual sovereignty and call into question the concept of inalienable rights.

I am saying, if someone wishes to leave the USA and denounce citizenship, they are allowed to do so. They are not required by any law to continue subjecting themselves to its jurisdiction.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Too bad you cant do that trumpy



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra

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.


Well except those spies we talked about earlier. They are usually here legally with permits.


With no loyalty to the US government and present for means of espionage. Applying the 14th amendment the correct way would still prevent their child from being a US citizen.


You are correct but there is no other application pr enforceable aspect. Surely you don't think the parents would lie...its written as its written. It's not interpretation. It was from a time gone past.

Interpretation isn't relevant. It's the words that need changing. The only alternative view is they were from another era and don't apply.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Just another example of the hypocrisy of the Far Right.

They ridiculously claim to honor the constitution while consistently proving they view it with disdain.


United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, 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.












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



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


Because to take away citizenship the law has to have an executable path. How do you prove it and at what cost to their due process rights before proven guilty?


Due process for illegal aliens only applies to criminal charges. The immigration side is not considered judicial but administrative. Hence the reason illegal aliens dont get the full protection as required for criminal charges. If a person lies / omits / misleads in their applications to be a US citizen that citizenship can in fact be revoked by the US government. The same applies to lawful aliens who did the same to obtain their visa.

The only way a US citizen can lose their citizenship is if they knowingly and freely give it up themselves.

The immigration system and judicial system are the executable path.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I see well I feel dumb.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

you mean like trump?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

I am down for it. I registered my son as a US citizen after he was born in Mexico. It felt like there is a general free for all with minors at the border.

Many in Mexico suggested that I just take my pregnant wife and cross her into the US illegally before the 9th month.

I was told that my son would be a US citizen to a greater degree than if I just followed the law and registered him as a US citizen's child that was born abroad.

There SHOULD be a difference between myself and a foreigner whose son was just rushed over the border in their mother's womb.

So I look at the people I met who's kids are now citizens while they are not.

Why would both our kids be citizens when only one of us actually is?

How is that fair to people like myself? Why did I follow the law when bringing my family here? Am I a fool for doing so?

Why are others rewarded with everything they want and need?


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



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Urantia1111

we have thousands of unfilled jobs.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


Because to take away citizenship the law has to have an executable path. How do you prove it and at what cost to their due process rights before proven guilty?


Due process for illegal aliens only applies to criminal charges. The immigration side is not considered judicial but administrative. Hence the reason illegal aliens dont get the full protection as required for criminal charges. If a person lies / omits / misleads in their applications to be a US citizen that citizenship can in fact be revoked by the US government. The same applies to lawful aliens who did the same to obtain their visa.

The only way a US citizen can lose their citizenship is if they knowingly and freely give it up themselves.

The immigration system and judicial system are the executable path.


Yes! We agree.

Except in what you think scotus can do before Congress writes better laws and stops protecting business owners.

However I don't think that makes sense. I can't believe I am going to say this but I think k Graham may be a good one to work the issue. Some beefing of boarder deterrents, employment verification, guest visa program with clear laws, change the birthright clause..

But honestly people not compromising is most likely what the parties actually want as the lobby farms they are.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join