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: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: tovenar

so what should be?? service in the armed forces?? then many of our presidents probably would be ineligible. wealth or property ownership? problem with this is that there are many, many people working their butts off and getting very little in return while more and more land and wealth is landing in the laps of the super wealthy investors. working and being taxpayers?? then you are casting aside a class of people, the seniors that have not only spent many years paying taxes but also gaining more wisdom and experience than could probably fill the younger generations minds!
if citizenship, a country to call their own isn't part of the fortune that is passed down from generation to generation, then no one's fortune is safe and secure!!!




posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The right to citizenship should be just as sacred as a right to bear arms or the right to free expression..

And it should be just as hard and hard fought to revoke, in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
So trump plans to end the controversial ‘anchor baby’ program....

The anchor baby law, is a loop hole law. Trump should close the loop hole. It wasn’t designed for criminals to illegally enter this country, so their kids can keep the criminals in the country. It’s like paying welfare recipients raises for more children



Huh?

"Anchor baby program"
"Anchor baby law"

Do you mean the US Constitution? 14th Amendment, Citizenship Clause:

"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."



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Except in this case the argument (and a valid one at that with supporting precedence) is the 14th amendment and citizenship has been misapplied since the early 1960's. Prior to that time illegal aliens who have a child while in the US did not get US citizenship for their child.

As the article explains the requirement is jurisdiction over US citizens. In a legal sense illegal aliens are not subject to said jurisdiction because they are not citizens of any US state or territory.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's the problem.

Criminals shouldn't get to profit off of breaking the law.

The payday is anchor babies.

Willful break the law.

That's fraud.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22


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. 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.


That seems pretty clear on the topic. I don't see how anyone could argue there's grey area when it comes to birthright citizenship.



Answer me this batman.
The 2nd says that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed.
Do we have any infringements on that one?

I'll answer for you.. yes we do.

Why is the 14th so special it cant be subject to a different interpretation?


This is not accurate. The states and regions are allowed to make public safety laws.

In that case we have the 10th and the 2nd colliding.


Until the scotus decisions in Heller and McDonald, you would be half right. Since those 2 rulings clarified the 2nd amendment, IE the right applies to the individual, things changed. Heller allows for certain gun control laws however the scotus established strict guidelines on what can be banned. Any weapon that is commonly available to the individual, like AR-15's, are protected and cant be banned.

While states can enact certain gun control laws it is very restrictive. We saw this in California where the state court system threw out a state law dealing with ammunition and magazine size as unconstitutional.

While the 10th amendment allows for states to enact certain laws it is limited when it comes to firearms and must defer to federal law (supremacy clause) and scotus rulings. Also because the manufacture of firearms uses components from different companies / manufacturing in different states it becomes a Federal issue under the commerce clause.


You didn't negate anything I said at all. You basically made my entire argument..



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's the problem.

Criminals shouldn't get to profit off of breaking the law.

The payday is anchor babies.

Willful break the law.

That's fraud.


Anchor babies (I would argue) are Constitutionally protected.

Right or wrong, it's pretty clear.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


The line right here is the issue, specifically -
* - subject to the jurisdiction of

They are not a US nor state citizens (Americans have dual citizenship). Nor are they subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government / state governments. Their presence in the US is illegal.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's the problem.

Criminals shouldn't get to profit off of breaking the law.

The payday is anchor babies.

Willful break the law.

That's fraud.



That is the problem. However, there is also a specific solution that the founders gave us to prevent federal power.

You don't get to complain about federal abuse and then cheer for it when it suits you and be an honest person.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath orAffirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's the problem.

Criminals shouldn't get to profit off of breaking the law.

The payday is anchor babies.

Willful break the law.

That's fraud.


Anchor babies (I would argue) are Constitutionally protected.

Right or wrong, it's pretty clear.


Are illegals granted all rights by the constitution?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
You didn't negate anything I said at all. You basically made my entire argument..


Funny - All I saw was your comment the 10th and 2nd amendment are colliding, which they aren't as I laid out. It is not a 10th amendment issue.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


The line right here is the issue, specifically -
* - subject to the jurisdiction of

They are not a US nor state citizens (Americans have dual citizenship). Nor are they subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government / state governments. Their presence in the US is illegal.


The founders didn't specify travel in the constitution. And the law in 1868 also encourages people visiting to stay purposely since our young men were piled up in mass graves.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: theantediluvian
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


The line right here is the issue, specifically -
* - subject to the jurisdiction of

They are not a US nor state citizens (Americans have dual citizenship). Nor are they subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government / state governments. Their presence in the US is illegal.


I would interpret that as being a citizen, are subject to the laws that all citizens have to obey.

Not as a qualifier for citizenship.


Caveat; I am not a Constitutional scholar.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

Here's the problem.

Criminals shouldn't get to profit off of breaking the law.

The payday is anchor babies.

Willful break the law.

That's fraud.


Anchor babies (I would argue) are Constitutionally protected.

Right or wrong, it's pretty clear.


Are illegals granted all rights by the constitution?


I would say no, but illegals not born in the US fall under a different category.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
You didn't negate anything I said at all. You basically made my entire argument..


Funny - All I saw was your comment the 10th and 2nd amendment are colliding, which they aren't as I laid out. It is not a 10th amendment issue.


It appears that is what you read and misinterpreted and then rejected my explanation.

The reason guns can be restricted which they are to some degree is because the 10th and the 2nd have already been working this out. It wasn't done through executive orders. However, EO's from the last admin tried and used legal precedent from state and local cases.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

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.

Even if it were to be found constittional, its a waste of time. No US president, because of UN Treaties even has the authority or power to legally close any of the borders; any and all comers can land in the US and file for asylum and then disappear into the word work forever.

Put another way. This country is a lost cause.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier
are illegal aliens not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal laws and those of the states they are in? sure they maybe breaking one or two of them, but still, they seem to be arrested just like everyone else.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Sounds like a psy-op , too see what they can get away with . Guage peoples reaction to their guy unilaterally changing the constitution . I say if he tries, impeach .



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Are you effing kidding?

The problem is whining federal over reach and trying to use STATE rights to justify breaking the law to gain FEDERAL citizenship.




top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join