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: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
All the Constitutionalists, Three Percenters, Patriots. American-Nationalists

this is your day




posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is how it currently works. But according to the Supreme Court there are two rulings which arguably say that is not what the 14th says should happen.

We have 2 court cases of children born on US soil with non citizen parents. In one the court ruled that because the parents were here engaged in legal business and Domiciled here and the US was their legal permanent residence the child was a citizen.

In the other the court ruled that the child was born on US soil but the US did not have jurisdiction over the parents and so the child, born on US soil, was not a citizen.

I remember when I was young DUI laws were not properly enforced. People got away with stuff they should not have. They did not need to write a new law, they just had to enforce the one they had.

Trump appears to be doing exactly what the Supreme Court has said should happen. So until the SC says otherwise, both court cases we have support Trump's EO.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




In the other the court ruled that the child was born on US soil but the US did not have jurisdiction over the parents and so the child, born on US soil, was not a citizen.


Can you cite or link that case for me? Thanks. I'd like to look at it.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Article 5 is very clear as to how the Constitution can be changed. No sitting President has the authority or power to change such at will, as it has to lay with the legislature.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Hope so...



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The Pilgrims were breaking their own (European) law/s.

However: American Indians, the Doctrine of Discovery, and Manifest Destiny - Wyoming Law Review vol 11-2 references how terra nullius has been presumed in the case of the doctrine of discovery which is still claimed as valid, as an excuse for the stealing of native title.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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?


The Pilgrims (and others) broke their own law, which applied to them.

Ignorance of the law excuses no one (ignorantia legis neminem excusat). < - Legal practice likes to quote things in Latin.




posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I am curious about the court case that you mentioned. The name and year of that court case would be helpful to see what the arguments and opinion of the courts were to be.

From all of the research I am looking at and had done there are 3 cases that would come into play on this:

US V. Wong Kim Ark. A person who was born here, from 2 immigrants who lived in the US and ran a business, went on a trip, denied entry and his citizenship. Fought and won the case showing he was a legal citizen of the US.

Levy V, McCartee: Case of inheritance, where the primary person died, having property, his children living in other countries, started a case as to determine who was and was not a native born son:
If an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,” and any such child was “a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law

The Schooner Exchange V. McFaddon: This is a case that is also of interest and importance, as it goes over what is considered jurisdiction and sovereignty. The schooner was owned by McFaddon sailed to Spain, then seized by order of Napoleon Bonaparte, armed and commissioned as a warship. Ended up in Philadelphia due to storm damage, and McFaddon filed action, and it was argued up to the US Supreme court.
Marshall wrote unequivocally that aliens are subjected to the jurisdiction of the sovereign where they are found, reasoning that “it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if (aliens) did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.”

However, there are other cases that would show what is being stated that one can not deny citizenship to a person born on the US soil. There are the court cases where states went to deny aid to illegal immigrants, including education and the courts looked at that and said no, that such was not acceptable. Even in the Plyler V. Doe, there is an assumption on the part of the court, that some of the very children that the state of Texas was wanting to deny education to, were in fact US citizens, born of illegal immigrant parents, and to hold the children accountable for the actions of their parents was just wrong and not supported by law or precedent.


In either case, if he does, it goes to court, gets fast tracked up to the US Supreme court, and if it is like any other decision, will be stated that such has to lie within the power of the congress to make law and alter such, and that to change an amendment does not lie within the power or authority of the president but again to the congress and states.



posted on Nov, 1 2018 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Trump says the EO comes next week !!

💥😎💥



posted on Nov, 2 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

where does it say in contitution that they have a right?



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The Pilgrims left Europe and their laws behind.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
supreme.justia.com...

I don't care what a lower court says. This is a Supreme Court issue. A lower court can NEVER overrule the SC.

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.


How can an illegal immigrant economic migrant that the US does not even know exists have direct and immediate allegiance to the US as they are intentionally circumventing US law?

How can a season worker have direct and immediate allegiance to the US?

How can someone who crosses the border to have a child and then return back to their country with their child have direct and immediate allegiance to the US?



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Just cited it, again.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: sdcigarpig

How can an illegal immigrant economic migrant that the US does not even know exists have direct and immediate allegiance to the US as they are intentionally circumventing US law?

How can a season worker have direct and immediate allegiance to the US?

How can someone who crosses the border to have a child and then return back to their country with their child have direct and immediate allegiance to the US?


How does any of that have anything to do with the inherited constitutional rights of an individual who was born on US soil?
edit on 3-11-2018 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Because what you claim matters not, the SUPREME COURT ruled that's what matters.

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.


Being born on US soil does not automatically convey citizenship in every case. That's a proven fact.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Being born on US soil does not automatically convey citizenship in every case.


Well, according to Trump it does.

Isn't that exactly what his ranting on about and claiming his going change?

He wants to bypass the constitution, by enacting an executive order... Isn't that the entire point?



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Whatever & however POTUS does things is going to be in our best interest of We The People.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
Being born on US soil does not automatically convey citizenship in every case.


Well, according to Trump it does.

Isn't that exactly what his ranting on about and claiming his going change?

He wants to bypass the constitution, by enacting an executive order... Isn't that the entire point?

No, it's not, you clearly have no clue what is happening.

The SC has ruled being born on US soil does not automatically convey citizenship in every case.
Trump is saying being born on US soil does not automatically convey citizenship.
Democrats are saying yes it does.

Trump is not bypassing the Constitution, his EO is telling people to FOLLOW the Constitution because the Constitution has been bypassed and not followed.

Learn what is actually happening and stop watching CNN.

In the end it will be the Supreme Court that decides what the Constitution actually says, and that is all Trump is actually doing, getting this before the SC for clarity.



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
All of the cases I cited were US Supreme Court cases. Even in Elk V. Wilkins, that case was very specific, and dealt with Native Americans. And the correction for that came later through the congress.
So how would the case of Elk V. Wilkins be relevant and apply to this issue today?
When one goes into another country, be it by one way or another, they would have to follow the laws of the local state. Even the US military, when stationed in a foreign country, if they go off base, are automatically subject to the local laws, and being in the military does not stop them from prosecution. Even the good will of the local communities, where there are military bases, would require that all military persons behave and obey the law.

Even the illegal immigrant’s if they want to remain off the radar, most of them tend to follow the laws, and tend to keep a low profile, by avoiding breaking the laws. It brings too much unwanted attention to them and often results in not only them but others who tend to get into trouble. There is an impact that such do make on the US economy. From all reports, and investigation, it would impact the food we eat, the hospitality and tourism, and even construction and automotive industries, jobs that most US citizens are moving away from and not wanting to do.

Historically, most immigrants, both legal and illegal, tend to move into those industries that US citizens move away from and fill that void for labor.

Funny that you mention about having a child, you do know that there is an entire industry that is built around that exact concept, where people will travel to the US, have a child, and then return home. It is a big industry, where millions, if not billions of dollars are involved in such.

So as you brought up that this is not enough, so what then does that make the presidents oldest children, Don, Eric, and Ivanka? After all Ivana was not a US citizen at the time of their birth, so does that mean that Trumps oldest children would be stripped of their citizenship?

And how far back should we go? 1, 2, 3 generations? Is there a cut off for what would or would not be constituted to be considered a citizen of the US? How about those military families who are stationed in Europe, and around the world? Would their children now be stripped of their citizenship, if they were born off base and had to be delivered in say a local hospital in a foreign country?



posted on Nov, 3 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
So how would the case of Elk V. Wilkins be relevant and apply to this issue today?

That in order to convey citizenship to the child the US must have complete jurisdiction over them. The definition of that is "completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance".

How does someone illegally crossing the border and having a midwife deliver the child 1 mile inside US territory and then reurning to Mexico meet that requirement?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join