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: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.


Travel within a state and across state borders is constitutionally protected via the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. Secondly when the founding fathers added natural born citizen they had to grandfather themselves in since at the time they were British subjects.

Until 1870 there were no federal laws with regards to voting the subsequent amendments took care of that. Only a US citizen can vote in state or federal elections.

The "people" you are referring to during the time frame also could not vote unless they were US citizens. It sounds like you are confusing voting rights with immigration laws, both of which are the purview of the Federal government.




posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
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.


Not really our founders encouraged freedom of travel, freedom of commerce etc...people used to migrate all the time, not become citizens, work, and then go back home or their offspring would become citizens...before passports and papers.

When they did passports and papers the lazy bastards in Congress didn't update the 14th or make amendments for commerce of working visitors properly.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 09:59 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?


Nope.

ETA - the only exception deals with criminal law, which any person in the US, regardless of nationality, is afford full protections of the criminal justice system. Note that this does NOT apply to immigration courts (which are not subject to the judicial branch but are established and administered by the Executive branch).
edit on 30-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

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.


Travel within a state and across state borders is constitutionally protected via the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution. Secondly when the founding fathers added natural born citizen they had to grandfather themselves in since at the time they were British subjects.

Until 1870 there were no federal laws with regards to voting the subsequent amendments took care of that. Only a US citizen can vote in state or federal elections.

The "people" you are referring to during the time frame also could not vote unless they were US citizens. It sounds like you are confusing voting rights with immigration laws, both of which are the purview of the Federal government.


Uh not confusing anything, and again, you have not in any way argued against what I said.

Naturalization and migrant workers who are not citizens are not the same nor does the constitution say the same thing about the situations.

We have a long history of people crossing the border to work.

The problem here is Congress doesn't amend the constitution when they change laws to alleviate loop holes or clarify the policy meanings.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

and we are discussing illegals having baby's in the US solely to get US citizenship.

Since you seem to be bouncing all over the place why dont you tell us exactly what it is you are trying to argue?

In this case there is no loophole. What their was is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment by applying illegally and unconstitutionally to foreign nations. As I stated prior to the 1960's illegals / foreign nations who had kids in the US were not granted citizenship.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

and we are discussing illegals having baby's in the US solely to get US citizenship.

Since you seem to be bouncing all over the place why dont you tell us exactly what it is you are trying to argue?

In this case there is no loophole. What their was is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment by applying illegally and unconstitutionally to foreign nations. As I stated prior to the 1960's illegals / foreign nations who had kids in the US were not granted citizenship.


Lol, the law doesn't specify. Which is why it needs to be changed. By Congress.

And you are completely incorrect. Migrant workers throughout history even prior to 1868 became citizens through ancestry.

So sure because of data and classification changes you are partly correct.

But you are completely wrong that migrant cattle workers didn't naturalize when they came from Mexico and stayed.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Uh huh.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Lol, the law doesn't specify.

The law does specify and has been specific and consistent until the 1960's.


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. 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.




originally posted by: luthierWhich is why it needs to be changed. By Congress.

You guys are confusing changing a section of the Constitution with whats actually going on. The argument being made is the 14th amendment has been misapplied. That is not changing the Constitution. As I said prior to the 1960's citizenship was not granted in the manner it is today. Also what the EO does is instruct executive departments to treat babies born to foreigners /illegals in the US to not classify them as US citizens.

The EO does not change anything in the 14th amendment. What it does is challenge the interpretation that it applies to foreigners / illegals. Given the way the 14th amendment is written it does not allow for foreigners / illegals to get citizenship for a kid born in the US.


originally posted by: luthier
And you are completely incorrect. Migrant workers throughout history even prior to 1868 became citizens through ancestry.

Please cite your source for this.



originally posted by: luthier
So sure because of data and classification changes you are partly correct.

But you are completely wrong that migrant cattle workers didn't naturalize when they came from Mexico and stayed.

Please cite your source for this claim.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
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.




I think part of the debate is whether the phrase means "solely" under U.S. jurisdiction or not.

Federal law seems to suggest it may mean "solely" given that tribal jurisdiction is considered primary to U.S. jurisdiction with regard to U.S. citizenship:


The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;


Link

The courts have determined the same with children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats and to hostile foreign invaders.


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



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh no...lol.

No confusion.

Let's just be clear you have been wrong in every legal discussion we have had because you interpret through confirmation bias.

I know this is a problem. However the clarification will need to come from Congress. They will suspend any EO and fast track this my prediction is they say its unconstitutional.

Let's hear what your prediction is and we can compare notes like when you said Ellis will rule Mueller has no authority.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

He's a fascist dictator in the making. How about we throw out all of the racists, including him?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.


Duly noted, but I will pose a hypothetical; let's say you think Star trek is cooler than star wars, would it be wrong of me to alter the facts? lame phasers versus awesome laser swords and hand lightning? Obviously Star Wars is better, but that is not written in law and I shouldn't have the right to make that a matter of fact.

For the people, by the people.


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



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


They are not a US nor state citizens (Americans have dual citizenship).


The clause does not state that the parents must be US citizens. SCOTUS ruled on this in United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese immigrants who could not become citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the court held that he was an American citizen by virtue of having been born on US soil.

Side note: "state citizenship" is essentially a moot point considering that you're automatically a citizen of any state in which you reside and states cannot exclude any US citizen residing in their borders from being citizens of their state.


Nor are they subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government / state governments.


The actual argument is that the parents are not as fully subject to jurisdiction of the federal government as citizens.


Their presence in the US is illegal.


Unless it's not. A lot of children are born to non-citizens in the US legally on visas.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

So you cant provide the requested info to support your claims and are now trying to deflect.

Cite your source about illegal immigrant workers getting US citizenship thru ancestry. Its been pointed out that native Americans are grandfathered. No where does it say what you claim.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: cfnyaami
a reply to: jtrenthacker

He's a fascist dictator in the making. How about we throw out all of the racists, including him?


No more than Eisenhower.

Mr Military Industrial complex himself.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

So you cant provide the requested info to support your claims and are now trying to deflect.

Cite your source about illegal immigrant workers getting US citizenship thru ancestry. Its been pointed out that native Americans are grandfathered. No where does it say what you claim.



Lol. Uncle Sam's Thanksgiving dinner? Study the civil war.

Migrant workers came, stayed, became citizens.


Study the civil war for heaven sakes.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Why does every other ammendment to the constitution have restrictions but this one cant be touched?

I have all kinds of regulations dealing with my speech and right to bare arms.



How would you feel if ole Indian Warren changed the game on the right to bear arms via executive order?

Would you be cool with it?



You do know that the supreme court is in place for this exact reason right?
They rule on constitutional law.

Trump can sign whatever he want, that doesn't make a law.
It's so hilarious because an Convo about Trump suggesting something and Leftist and their ilk loose their mind as if what he says is absolute rule and law.

I'm especially loving the triggered replies be even the senior of members and its all emotional responses, like walking on strawberry cake.


Calling someone "triggered" is such a weak response. People are putting across a counter argument. If you dismiss this as triggered then all discussion becomes two people triggering each other. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? This is exactly the same as the whole "snowflake" thing. It is a pathetic retort to what is essentially an opposing opinion. Unless we want to go down this route? Anyone who disagrees has been triggered and is a snowflake for complaining.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The clause does not state that the parents must be US citizens. SCOTUS ruled on this in United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark's parents were Chinese immigrants who could not become citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the court held that he was an American citizen by virtue of having been born on US soil.

You are ignoring a key point in that ruling -

the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.


You are also ignoring the fact the Chinese parents were lawfully residing in the US. They were here lawfully and not illegally.



originally posted by: theantediluvian
Side note: "state citizenship" is essentially a moot point considering that you're automatically a citizen of any state in which you reside and states cannot exclude any US citizen residing in their borders from being citizens of their state.

The part you are missing is jurisdiction of -
As an illegal -
Are they paying full taxes to the Federal and State government? Nope
Can an illegal obtain a drivers license? In some states but not all (complicated further by the full faith and credit clause of the constitution).
Can an illegal vote in State or Federal elections?
Can an illegal obtain a US passport?
Can an illegal ignore federal / state laws?
Can an illegal ignore immigration laws?

I can keep going but as you can see an illegal is in fact not subject to the complete jurisdiction of a state or federal government by virtue of not being a US citizen and by being present in the US illegally.



originally posted by: theantediluvian
The actual argument is that the parents are not as fully subject to jurisdiction of the federal government as citizens.
and by extension their kids born in this country. As I have stated before if my parents rob a bank and give me the money should I be allowed to keep illegally obtained items?



originally posted by: theantediluvian
Unless it's not. A lot of children are born to non-citizens in the US legally on visas.

Again ILLEGALLY. You are intermixing situations and examples based on being here lawfully. The issue right now revolves around being here illegally.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

So you cant provide the requested info to support your claims and are now trying to deflect.

Cite your source about illegal immigrant workers getting US citizenship thru ancestry. Its been pointed out that native Americans are grandfathered. No where does it say what you claim.



Lol. Uncle Sam's Thanksgiving dinner? Study the civil war.

Migrant workers came, stayed, became citizens.


Study the civil war for heaven sakes.


Cite your source



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I think the really key line to pay close attention to here is “subject to the jurisdiction of”

Because while the main goal would be to strip the citizenship of anchor babies, if you abdicate your jurisdiction of them, then you cannot legally deport or do other things like conduct trials for crimes. So while education, medical and other welfare could be declined, it would also grant immunity to laws, effectively granting protected residency on whim or choice of the individual once across the border.

Not such a good idea if you had to repel an invading army, they could claim they were coming as non residents not subject to jurisdiction and merely bringing their guns for self defense.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join