Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

Heck, here, directly from the easiest link available, wiki.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: luthier

A few reasons. Slaves, native Americans, lack of young men since they were mostly all dead, and it follows the philosophy of natural law the founders used from empiricism philosophy.

Oddly enough the originalist philosophy would say you read it as is.

Err...no... The originalist philosophy would say to interpret it as it was done at the time of enactment... Not to interpret it as today's Liberals interpret it...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: luthier

A few reasons. Slaves, native Americans, lack of young men since they were mostly all dead, and it follows the philosophy of natural law the founders used from empiricism philosophy.

Oddly enough the originalist philosophy would say you read it as is.

Err...no... The originalist philosophy would say to interpret it as it was done at the time of enactment... Not to interpret it as today's Liberal's interpret it...

Errr..no originalist philosophy means interpret as written.

The cause of a laws creation has no bearing at all in how it is enforced. If it is easily misinterpreted it need to be rewritten.

Unfortunately for you this one is clear.

The reason it was written originally by Bates is also pretty clearly on record.

So in terms of interpretation I would say study what Bates ess basing the philosophy on and the discussion in Congress.

a reply to: luthier

For crying out loud...

Originalism
originalismblog.typepad.com
In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution's meaning as stable from the time of enactment, which can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. The term originated in the 1980s.
...
The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, are associated with this view.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Lol ah a cut and paste argument maker.

The constitution and amendments are not written like the crappy Bill's in Congress. They are written vague or specific for reason of intent.

If you don't know who John Locke, Decartes, Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson, and Lincoln's AG Bates was then sure you can misinterpret the meaning of foreign ambassadors or spies.

And there is certainly room for Congress to make policy that will be challenged. That may have a higher chance, but it would be hard to come from the president, even with his authority to execute immigration laws.

Particularly refugees. We took in many Mexicans during the mexican war around 1911.

a reply to: luthier

LOL, someone who makes vague mentions of some Founding Fathers, and even includes people like Voltaire as if he was a Founding Father, when he was born French, lived in France and died in France... Then this person continues to claim that the meaning of the originalist argument is that "the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as written" when the true interpretation of originalism is that either it has to be interpreted as those who drafted it, and ratified it interpreted the Constitution, or it has to be interpreted as "reasonable persons living at the time it was enacted would have understood the original meaning."

But of course some people want to interpret the Constitution as they see it written today, when in fact they want to give it a different interpretation...

You know, similar to how democrats now-a-days, and for several decades, claim that "they have no idea what a Republican form of government means" as stated in Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution...

a reply to: BlueAjah

***Standing ovation for you***

originally posted by: Phage

Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself to be a Christian?

Ironic that non-Christians, including atheists always want to tell Christians how to be Christian...

In case you didn't know, Jesus made it clear.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Meaning, even Christians have to abide by men's laws.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes, it's complicated. That's why an EO is a baaaad idea.

You don't get to just ignore the Constitution, without it coming back to bite you at some future point.

But where in the Constitution does it state that illegal immigrants and their children should be considered as citizens?

The 14th amendment was written, and meant in specific for freed slaves and their future generations born in the U.S.

There are already laws that protect some illegals in some exceptions such as being trafficked persons in the U.S.

a reply to: headorheart
Pres Trump knows that he cannot end this with an EO. The EO will be challenged, in the courts,inside of 5mins after he signs it.
However, this will bring the issue to a head and a favorable solution down the road. Maybe!
The 14th Amendment DOES NOT grant automatic citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens inside the borders of the US.
The 14th Amendment was intended to ensure that the children of recently freed slaves were citizens. It also states that the children of diplomats of foreign countries born in the US are not citizens of the US either.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The 14th amendment was written, and meant in specific for freed slaves and their future generations born in the U.S.

But where in the Constitution does it state that?

I think they could clarify the law, for example parents have to have been in country 1 year before birth and 1 year after birth. They can't just show up at 8 1/2 months pregnant and then take off 1 month after the baby is born, that is abusing the intent of the original law.

As a non American, and know supporter of either the parties. I have to ask...

is trump mental? Like.... completely bonkers? Even if you are a gop, you must see hes mental?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: luthier

LOL, someone who makes vague mentions of some Founding Fathers, and even includes people like Voltaire as if he was a Founding Father, when he was born French, lived in France and died in France... Then this person continues to claim that the meaning of the originalist argument is that "the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as written" when the true interpretation of originalism is that either it has to be interpreted as those who drafted it, and ratified it interpreted the Constitution, or it has to be interpreted as "reasonable persons living at the time it was enacted would have understood the original meaning."

But of course some people want to interpret the Constitution as they see it written today, when in fact they want to give it a different interpretation...

You know, similar to how democrats now-a-days, and for several decades, claim that "they have no idea what a Republican form of government means" as stated in Article 4 Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution...

I guess you are clueless as to the references of the social contract the founders constantly use and where their philosophy comes from.

The constitution is largely based on John locke's work specifically two treaties of government.

Voltaire was referenced quite a bit by Jefferson and Adam's and the theor they used to write the constitution came from natural law discussed by the philosophers I mentioned.

Of coarse you would have to actually know history and not just Google your answers, cite statutes, or check in with whatever party narrative you choose to provide your answers.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TinySickTears

Yes, it's complicated. That's why an EO is a baaaad idea.

You don't get to just ignore the Constitution, without it coming back to bite you at some future point.

But where in the Constitution does it state that illegal immigrants and their children should be considered as citizens?

The 14th amendment was written, and meant in specific for freed slaves and their future generations born in the U.S.

There are already laws that protect some illegals in some exceptions such as being trafficked persons in the U.S.

It's right there in the constitution.

Under separation of powers and Congress deciding naturalization.

Immigration isn't even mentioned.

Secondly it's very clear we have natural birth citizenship and the reason Bates wrote the law the way he did was for future instances that could occur. He wanted the constitution to reflect natural rights.

I actually provided his quotes pages ago.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Jefferson was profoundly interested in the work of the French philosopher and historian Voltaire and owned seven works by the author. The French influence in Jefferson’s collection did not go unnoticed.
Congressman Cyrus King objected in 1814 that: “It might be inferred from the character of the man who collected it, and France, where the collection was made, that the library contained irreligious and immoral books, works of French philosophers, who caused and influenced the volcano of the French Revolution which had desolated Europe and extended to this country.”

www.loc.gov...

Son, you have no idea what America was based on and why it was created the way it was.

The founders were the opposite of nativist, they were liberals.

The founders were classical liberals. Today those are closely related to libertarians.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Alana Mastrangelo
‏Verified account @ARmastrangelo

First: the 14th Amendment was written to protect former slaves and their children, not for illegals to abuse

Second: Sen. Howard—who wrote the 14A—clarified that

Third: I find it hilarious we’re being lectured by the same people who have proudly called for the repeal of the 2A

I could see how this could be misinterpreted, but it is talking about only one class of people - not three or four different classes of people.

The whole point of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment was to overrule the abominable SCOTUS Dred Scott decision. Said decision said blacks weren't citizens, nor could ever be citizens.

If blacks were not citizens nor could ever be citizens, then how could the 14th Amendment apply to blacks by the interpretation that birthright citizenship only applied for children of citizens?

a reply to: Ghostsinthefog

I don't get how people don't see this.

originally posted by: luthier
There is no arguement at all to support an EO altering the constitution.

He isn't going to 'alter' it.

He is going to clarify the meaning.

Everyone ignores the qualifier 'and subject to t he jurisdiction thereof'. That means bears allegiance to. For Dems, that means they would have to be here LEGALLY.

An illegal alien is not here legally, so 14th amendment Citizenship does not apply to them.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: luthier
There is no arguement at all to support an EO altering the constitution.

He isn't going to 'alter' it.

He is going to clarify the meaning.

Everyone ignores the qualifier 'and subject to t he jurisdiction thereof'. That means bears allegiance to. For Dems, that means they would have to be here LEGALLY.

An illegal alien is not here legally, so 14th amendment Citizenship does not apply to them.

Nobody ignores the qualifier.

They know it's so obvious there is no need to challenge it.