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: 23
20
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: efabian
the supreme court doesn't "fix" anything. they just decide weather a law or policy is constitutional or not

Revisiting and righting a bad decision is 'fixing' something that was broken - just like revisiting and undoing Roe v Wade will be fixing another very bad decision.




posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
As much as I'd like to see this amendment done away with, the only way is via constitutional convention,

Wrong, try again...



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker
A Constitutional Amendment cannot be changed by Executive Order. A President takes an oath to protect the Constitution, not subverse it. Ergo, all presidents are bound by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Besides, SCOTUS already ruled on this in 1898 in United States vs Wong Kim Ark. SCOTUS held that even though the parents were subjects of the emperor of China, they held a permanent domicile in the US and as such, the 14th Amendment provides protection for the children of immigrants and that they are citizens if born in the US. The only actual restrictions is if the parents were either acting in the interest of a foreign power or pledged allegiance to it. SCOTUS is the last word of all things Constitutional in the United States.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   
She would never have the chance, so what's your next What If ism?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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?

-sigh- it doesn't, you have to read the debates prior to its proposal and adoption.

I won't (ok, I lied) mention the problem with the fact that the 14th amendment (among others) is illegitimate because the southern states were forced to adopt it at gunpoint.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: efabian
the supreme court doesn't "fix" anything. they just decide weather a law or policy is constitutional or not

Revisiting and righting a bad decision is 'fixing' something that was broken - just like revisiting and undoing Roe v Wade will be fixing another very bad decision.

That's what the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment did - it fixed the Dred Scott decision.

Because that is what it was for, it is nonsensical to argue that children of non-citizens born on U.S. soil aren't citizens.

Dred Scott said blacks weren't citizens and could never be citizens.
If the 14th Amendment didn't apply to non-citizens, how could it have overruled Dred Scott?



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: jtrenthacker

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.




I don't think a law like this can be retroactive. It is effective when its passed. If they tried to to make it a retroactive law, the courts would be tied up for decades, not workable.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: efabian
the supreme court doesn't "fix" anything. they just decide weather a law or policy is constitutional or not

Revisiting and righting a bad decision is 'fixing' something that was broken - just like revisiting and undoing Roe v Wade will be fixing another very bad decision.

That's what the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment did - it fixed the Dred Scott decision.

Yes - it allowed slaves and the children of slaves - all of whom were already here legally (do you seriously not see the huge difference here?) - to be Citizens.


Because that is what it was for, it is nonsensical to argue that children of non-citizens born on U.S. soil aren't citizens.

What is non-sensical is to believe that the child of Aliens who not only do not owe allegiance to the United States (aka, 'are not subject to its jurisdiction'), but in fact, owe allegiance to a Foreign State (aka 'are subject to its jurisdiction'), should somehow be made permanent citizens because their parent[s] broke our immigration laws and made it across the border just in time to have the child.


Dred Scott said blacks weren't citizens and could never be citizens.
If the 14th Amendment didn't apply to non-citizens, how could it have overruled Dred Scott?

The slaves were here legally.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   

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.

Don't be ridiculous.

Native Americans (which all people who are born here of citizen parents) can never have their Citizenship revoked - without some kind of Constitutional Amendment allowing it, which would never happen.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: jtrenthacker
A Constitutional Amendment cannot be changed by Executive Order.

Correct. All Trump is doing is clarifying the meaning of it.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
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?

Actually, the more things he does like this, the more I believe that he is actually really, really smart. An arrogant ass, maybe, but so what?



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: MRinder
It would be that you become a US citizen when at least one of your parents are a US citizen.


No, anyone whose parents are legal in the U.S. and have children, their children will still become U.S. citizens...

Correct.

Children of Native Americans who have children while outside the US will still acquire Citizenship by blood (the fact that their parents are Citizens).



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl




Actually, the more things he does like this, the more I believe that he is actually really, really smart.

Yes. He's really smart about throwing red meat to his base. About lying to them. And they like it.
The United States is the only country with birthright citizenship?


edit on 11/2/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Ghostsinthefog
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?

Actually, the more things he does like this, the more I believe that he is actually really, really smart. An arrogant ass, maybe, but so what?


Trump throws out publicly everything including the kitchen sink -- then waits to see what his base "clomps" on to -- so he can then zero in on it.

It's not really smart. It's a "win" at all cost
desparation tactic.

There will be consequences for years to come.



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl



What is non-sensical is to believe that the child of Aliens who not only do not owe allegiance to the United States (aka, 'are not subject to its jurisdiction'), but in fact, owe allegiance to a Foreign State (aka 'are subject to its jurisdiction'), should somehow be made permanent citizens because their parent[s] broke our immigration laws and made it across the border just in time to have the child.


…..Non-sensical, maybe, but

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.


The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.
www.law.cornell.edu...



31 CFR 515.330 - Person within the United States.
§ 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Yes. He's really smart about throwing red meat to his base. About lying to them.

What lie?


The United States is the only country with birthright citizenship?

Where did I say it was?

Regardless, who cares what others do?



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Trump throws out publicly everything including the kitchen sink -- then waits to see what his base "clomps" on to -- so he can then zero in on it.

Proof? Examples?

As far as I can see, he is making good on campaign promises. Best track record fo keeping promises I've seen in... well, maybe, forever?



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Annee
Trump throws out publicly everything including the kitchen sink -- then waits to see what his base "clomps" on to -- so he can then zero in on it.

Proof? Examples?

As far as I can see, he is making good on campaign promises. Best track record fo keeping promises I've seen in... well, maybe, forever?


And ignoring everything else he says or does.

Seeing only what you want to see.

"Look here -- don't look there"

Kind of the point.

edit on 5-11-2018 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
…..Non-sensical, maybe, but

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

-snip-

That's funny...

First, nowhere do those codes make a claim with respect to the words in the 14th amendment. As you know (or should know if you're going to go around linking to legal definitions), legislation can redefine pretty much any word or words to mean pretty much anything, as long as the scope is limited to just that application.

On the other hand, if the legislative history of that section can be shown as applicable to the 14th amendment, what you just did merely proves that congress has attempted to alter the Constitution by legislation rather than by amendment by trying to redefine what that phrase plainly means.

As to what that phrase plainly means, you have to look at the history, both of the passage of the amendment, and debates, discussions and rulings that followed. For example:


"In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General – who was a Senator during the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause debates – ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:


The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)



So, again - this clearly does not apply to illegal aliens, as their allegiance is to a foreign government (their country of origin), and any attempt to change this meaning, other than by Constitutional amendment, is not only an unlawful attempt to alter the Constitution, I would argue it is an act of sedition.



posted on Nov, 5 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee


And ignore everything else he says or does.

If it's superfluous, yes.

I care about what he manages to do to get the economy going. I care about how well he handles diplomatic relations with other countries. I care about how well he tries to defend the border. Those were his campaign promises, and I think he's done a good job accomplishing them so far.

I do not care how many scoops of ice cream he gets. I do not care if Melania doesn't want to hold his hand today. I do not care what he did or didn't do with Stormy Daniels. I do not care if he had a business go bankrupt. I do not care if he tells CNN to stop publishing fake news. I do not care if he likes to use Twitter. I do not care if he uses too much suntan lotion. All those things are superfluous and do not matter to me. So no, I won't look "over there" because there's nothing "over there" that interests me.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
20
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join