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 claims he can defy Constitution and end birthright citizenship

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

False. There is no case that says that. If illegals were subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and the US law states they can not be here illegally, then they are clearly not under jurisdiction at that time.

There are cases where LEGAL immigrants have been shown to have this right.




posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Did someone say that illegals' anchor babies are the same as the pilgrims? Wasn't the pilgrims' arrival over 250 year prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Everyone within US borders are subject to the jurisdiction/authority of the US Government, except those with (diplomatic) immunity.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I'm sorry but the biggest problems in America are not related to race, as Trump is trying to hint.

After the shooting in Portland Pittsburg, 70,000 people have put their signatures to a petition to keep Trump away. The predominantly Jewish signatories are concerned that Trump represents right-wing hate speech, which was a motivator for the shooter and a reminder of the attitudes of Nazism which enacted the Holocaust.


Your right - that is a big problem.

70,000 people are apparently so ignorant or stupid they actually believe Trump supports Nazism.

The fact that many idiots are ready to sign the petition is very dangerous. To be that devoid of reality quite possibly makes them very dangerous to society.


I didn't say that, nor do I think that the signatories believe that "Trump supports Nazism".

Your response, however, says something about how your opinion blinds you to the nuances of what is actually occurring.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: SammyB0476
Did someone say that illegals' anchor babies are the same as the pilgrims? Wasn't the pilgrims' arrival over 250 year prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?


Please present the legal bona fides of the Pilgrims.

Surely the Pilgrims were not granted citizenship by the existing governing authorities.

They, like the 318,923,393 people currently resident in the US who are not American Indian and Alaska Natives, are all illegals.

edit on 31/10/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Bud, I'm not arguing with you about anything other than the fact that he could have used the word liberal and not been a political dig. I'm not saying that it wasn't meant to be the way he said it. I'm just saying liberal means generous, or freely. I was just messing with you with word play.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Doesn't the fact that he didnt support Trump for that very reason, and the fact he felt the need to act kind of counter their rationale?

Meanwhile if I remember correctly dems told me that begrudging groups of peoples beliefs creates terrorist,.. things that make you go hmm,..
edit on 10/31/2018 by TheLead because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.

Trump's vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Trump did not say when he would sign the order, and some of his past promises to use executive action have gone unfulfilled. But whether the President follows through on his threat or not, the issue joins a string of actions intended to thrust the matter of immigration into the front of voters' minds as they head to polls next week.


Source

So, now Trumps attempting to garner up support from his base in the midterm elections by claiming his going to violate the US constitution with an executive order.

Like seriously, are you guys that far gone that you would let a threat like this from Trump just pass, without taking issue?

His literally bragging about having the power to change the constitution at will. Obviously, as usual with Trump, its probably just a bunch of hot air and empty rhetoric... But still, he's made a claim that he has the power to single handedly rewrite the constitution.

How can even the most hardcore supporters of Trump just let this slide?


Yeah. I hear you, but I also agree that amendment is absolutely crazy, but to unilaterally strike an amendment sets a precedent that any sitting president can strike any amendment they want via executive order is ludicrous. If he issues this order, the next democrat president will issue an Executive Order to strike the second. Then you basically lose the entire constitution.

It's ludicrous. On the flip though, we're one country of all countries that can be counted on one hand that allow born babies to become natural citizens. This is called chain migration and there is a distinctive reason it's not a widely adopted policy.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Trump took the EASIEST WAY to address part of the immigration issue: anchor babies

Trump is not changing the constitution, he is just expediting the process to have the Supreme Court make a ruling.

Or the country can continue to wait for the Senate and Congress to change some laws..........

a reply to: SRPrime



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Everyone within US borders are subject to the jurisdiction/authority of the US Government, except those with (diplomatic) immunity.

Says you. If the US law says they can't be here, and they are here, then are they really subject to the US government?



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

What immigration law were they breaking?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

What immigration law were they breaking?


It goes back to Ancient Rome which codified a law they called res nullius which, in English, means no-one's thing. It applied to anything that was not owned which could be claimed as property by the first person who made such a claim. The flip-side to that law was that anything already owned could not be claimed as property.

This was applied to the rules of territorial conquest by Europeans from the 15th and 16th centuries and so had been part of European law for hundreds of years by the time the Pilgrims occupied American Indian land.

The Pilgrims didn't gain the territory in conquest, nor was the land unowned (terra nullius) when they came in and took over.

By legal definition, they took something that they did not own.

A similar thing happened with the establishment of British rule over Australia (at approximately the same time in history as the Pilgrims) where they claimed, invalidy, terra nullius.

It is exactly that 'immigration' law that they were breaking.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

So there was no immigration law that they broke. At which point were the Native Americans reading about ancient rome and following it's rules?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Please provide sources that Native Americans observed the idea of res nullius (which, incidentally, was private law in Rome rather than public law in Rome), and provide examples, with sources, of which Native American laws the Pilgrims violated.

Please and thanks.
edit on 1-11-2018 by Shamrock6 because: forgot to close my parenthesis. how embarrassing!



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

apples and oranges



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   


Judge Napolitano Teaches Basic Civics to Desperate ‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts


Here we have a very conservative judge giving a 7th-grade civics lesson to clueless Fox news Trump fanatics

link




“Look, the president can’t change the plain meaning of the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” Napolitano said. Trump’s intentions were revealed in a clip from the new Axios on HBO released this week. In it, he said he plans to sign an order that will terminate the legal right of babies born on U.S. soil to have citizenship if the parent is an undocumented immigrant or non-citizen. “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits,” Trump said, inaccurately. “And it has to end.” (That claim was quickly deemed false after the Axios clip posted—birthright citizenship exists in dozens of other countries, including Canada and Mexico.) Napolitano explained that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state in which they live.”



Notice Trump lies again in the above quote saying America is the only country with this law but is as usual lying.
Of course, if Trump talks he lies, almost naturally.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Says you. If the US law says they can't be here, and they are here, then are they really subject to the US government?


They're in violation of US law. The law applies to them, and if apprehended, they will be arrested and charged. They aren't exempt from the law.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: neo96

apples and oranges


Green apples red apples still apples.

😃



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Once apprehended, then they are arguably under jurisdiction. But you keep refusing to answer my question.

If someone came over and immediately gave birth, they are not domiciled here, their child would not be a citizen. Right or wrong according to that ruling?



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Children born on US are indeed US citizen's. If that child has a legal birth certificate, and goes home with his deported mother, and then returns years later, Border Patrol can't detain or block his entry, according to present day law.

In those days, I don't think they had birth certificates, at least they weren't regularly handed out to disenfranchised immigrants, who most probably were home birthed, to prove citizenship. So, looking at the parent's residency would make sense, back then. But, according to your logic, if a homeless person gives birth on American soil today, that child might not be a citizen, because there was no record of a domicile.




top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join