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 Ready to Stop the Anchor Baby Loophole

page: 16
47
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   


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.


emphasis added by me.

I wonder if a legal attack on birthright citizenship could be made based on the "and". Meaning that the authors of the 14th had a two-fold requirement:

1) being born or naturalized in the U.S.
2) AND being subject to the jurisdiction thereof

As in, they haven't officially surrendered their old citizenship from their motherland; they also have not paid taxes or otherwise held themselves out to be subject to the US laws, including immigration laws. Every person here, gets the protections afforded by the ruling US government, a concept that goes back to the Biblical book of Leviticus.

So to claim a birthright citizenship, they have to be born/naturalized here, AND subject to US laws. Not in open rebellion, and not a bandit or tax-cheat who hasn't subjected themselves to the IRS.

just a thought.




posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Conversely, the children of diplomats shouldn't be eligible to become US citizens by birthright, since they are specifically excluded from the jurisdiction of the host-country where their parents serve.

If anything amendment 14.1 should make the children of diplomats ineligible for US citizenship, at least if it's based upon the circumstances of their birth.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bloodymarvelous




During the Cold War, if we caught a KGB agent working in the USA, what would we do with them?


Arrest them for espionage?



They're not guilty of espionage. They're guilty of unlawful entry.

However, the idea is that arresting someone for a crime they have committed (in the Soviet Spies' case it was espionage) - does not necessarily mean they are "subject to your jurisdiction". They were still subject to Soviet jurisdiction, and of course the Soviets would deny all knowledge of their activities and say they had acted of their own accord. But may also issue new orders to them while they are in prison in America.


The real question is:

If Mexico went to war and held a draft, would they be eligible for Mexico's draft?

If the USA went to war and held a draft, would they be eligible for America's draft?








Maybe Mexico would end up having to help pay for the wall after all?


I don't think the bulk of the migrants at the southern border are Mexican. I think they're from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and beyond.



It's hard to say how much of "the bulk" comes from where. Quite a lot of illegal immigrants are fully Mexican, and will brag about which part of Mexico they originate from. But certainly a fair number come from the other countries.

Mexico's Southern border is actually more dangerous to cross than the USA's.

edit on 30-8-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: shorten



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Graysen

you are pretty close to correct, we can tell you are right by looking at the law in its historical context, they passed it to make the children of slaves and legal Chinese residents citizens, it is explicitly not for tourists or illegal aliens.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.

I'd have to say, on the face of it, that this move would be unconstitutional.

Bold is mine now... and you are wrong.

Now, if the text read:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

you would be right.

The qualifier "..., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..." has a very specific legal meaning. It means they have to be here legally.

There are statutes carving out exceptions to the birthright rule - e.g., children born to foreign diplomats who are working here.

The only children that lawfully acquire 14th amendment citizenship are children born to people who are here legally, either by a simple Visa, or going through the immigration process.

I do believe that this change could also be legally applied retroactively.

Of course, anything can be challenged, and it obviously will be challenged. But any truly honest Constitutionally aware Judge will rule it Constitutional.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Retroactive is a much tougher legal hurdle. I really don't like the idea of removing citizenship status once granted.

Now, I can go along with certain restrictions. There was a recent incident where protestors pulled down the American flag over an ICE facility and raised a Mexican flag; I see that as an act of war against the United States and would have no problem with anyone involved having their citizenship revoked, nor would I have difficulty with any naturalized citizen who achieved their citizenship through materially relevant fraud having that citizenship nullified... but that's not what happened to the anchor babies. They were born here, and they were granted citizenship by that very premise, so there was no fraud.

While I haven't researched it, I believe there are laws on the books already to cover those particular cases I mentioned. That is sufficient for me. The anchor babies who are already here can stay as far as I am concerned, as long as we get clarification that their citizenship was granted by choice and not by the necessity of Constitutional compliance.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Seems like he has a good plan, hope it happens and other countries actually follow suit...

But lets remember what ALL our politicians tell us, all these people come here to work....

Seriously?

They still try to peddle that one to this day..

Well come to where I live and count the number of people who are new here and happily sitting on social welfare and LOVIN IT...Thanks McDonalds...

Yes we do get some folk who instantly try and work but the economic migrants far outweigh them. We have a new set of flats just built that are crammed high with Somali and Sudanese women that are just basic baby machines. The fact that they are uneducated automatically makes them unemployable but the old baby game then writes them off for good...

Lets make all these tricks and loop holes go away for good..



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Retroactive is impossible. They have citizenship. They would need to take an action which would qualify for having citizenship revoked.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Retroactive is a much tougher legal hurdle.

Agreed...


I really don't like the idea of removing citizenship status once granted.

I'd be ok with allowing them to retain their Citizenship if they signed a document agreeing that they are giving up any and all voting or government welfare privileges.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is pretty much where I am. I see no legal way to revoke citizenship once granted without direct actions taken by the parties. Plus, I would consider that cruel. The United States has every right to determine who is and is not a citizen by law, but we do not have the right to arbitrarily take that privilege away once given.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


I'd be ok with allowing them to retain their Citizenship if they signed a document agreeing that they are giving up any and all voting or government welfare privileges.

That would be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Once a citizen, one is a citizen. Period. One cannot be a partial citizen, any more than one can be partly pregnant.

All citizens have equal rights to social services and all citizens have the right to vote. That cannot and must not be changed.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Unless they somehow lied. Citizenship granted under false pretenses can be revoked. For instance there is a business of US midwives forging documents for children born in Mexico and claiming they were born in the US. 20 years later the citizenship can be revoked because it was granted fraudulently.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Citizens get to vote.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
There are 30 countries in the world that offer birthright citizenship,

Birthright doesn't mean what you think it means in that source.

It is talking about the Citizenship of a Parent, or possibly a Grandparent.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

Citizens get to vote.

Not all Citizens.

Citizens under the age of 18 (used to be, and should be changed back to, 21) cannot vote.

(Some) Citizens who are convicted felons cannot vote.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
All citizens have equal rights to social services and all citizens have the right to vote.

This is simply not true, see my prior response.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes, so anchor baby citizens who are 18 and not felons get to vote.



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Citizenship grants the right to vote subject to certain provisions. You mentioned the two biggies. There is no legal precedent for removing a right to vote in exchange for citizenship; I believe the opposite precedent might exist, though. The courts take the right to vote very seriously.

There would be no need for citizenship if it denied one the right to social services and the right to vote. They would be a citizen in name only.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes, so anchor baby citizens who are 18 and not felons get to vote.

Not if they agree to waive the privilege (it is not a Right) in exchange for being allowed to stay and retain their Citizenship (in all other respects).



posted on Aug, 30 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

Citizenship grants the right to vote subject to certain provisions.

Rights (capital 'R' Rights) are not 'granted'.

For that reason, voting is, and can be nothing other than a government granted privilege.

Proof is found in the facts I already outlined - minors cannot vote, most felons cannot vote, etc.


There would be no need for citizenship if it denied one the right to social services and the right to vote. They would be a citizen in name only.

Really? You really believe that?

I have never utilized any of your precious 'social services'.

I have also only voted a few times - and will again in 2020, for the first time since 2008 (when I voted for Ron Paul).

The very best advantages of Citizenship come from being allowed to pursue your dreams, whatever they may be.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join