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: 4
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Text of the 14th Amendment
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.

Bold is mine.

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

Maybe on the face of it, but look deeper. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A natural-born citizen is born being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by virtue of the subjection of his/her parent(s), and a naturalized citizen takes an oath affirming subjection to the jurisdiction of the US. Walking across the border is not subjection to the jurisdiction of the US.

This is something that has been sorely needed for a long long time. It's going to be an uphill battle, but it'll be worth it.

TheRedneck




posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: funbobby




You must think that Mexicans are all "brown" is that what you think?


Do you think that all Central American's are Mexican? Is that what you think?

Look at the pictures, and tell me how many non-brown you see waiting in line, or being kept in cages, at the southern border.

The proof is in the pudding, bub!

Yes. Trump's new push to abolish birth right citizenship is a directly outcome of his racist and bigoted agenda toward brown people "walking across the border" and giving birth to American citizens.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Then why are they held in US custody, and tried in US courts and do time in US jails for breaking US law, instead of merely being deported back to the jurisdiction that has authority over them?
edit on 26-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: funbobby




You must think that Mexicans are all "brown" is that what you think?


Do you think that all Central American's are Mexican? Is that what you think?

Look at the pictures, and tell me how many non-brown you see waiting in line, or being kept in cages, at the southern border.

The proof is in the pudding, bub!

Yes. Trump's new push to abolish birth right citizenship is a directly outcome of his racist and bigoted agenda toward brown people "walking across the border" and giving birth to American citizens.





Why do you have to bring up the phrase “Brown people” all the time?

Agenda driven much?

And still no concrete, solid and unbiased evidence or proof concerning my earlier question...

Lags
edit on 26-8-2019 by Lagomorphe because: Crap phone on French language spell checker



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme


He wants to end the laws that say if you're born in a country you are a citizen of that country even though thats the way it is all over the planet.

All over the planet? Are you really that misinformed?

Walk down to Mexico and drop a kid, see if they are Mexican citizens. Mexico will convict you of a felony, throw you in a dirty little cell to serve your time for a felony conviction, deport your kid back to the US, and then deport you when (and if) you ever get out of their jail. Try it in France. Spain. England. You'll be laughed at while you and your kid are sent packing.

Only in the US is it this way. No where else is that dumb.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

originally posted by: DBCowboy

Text of the 14th Amendment
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.

Bold is mine.

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

Maybe on the face of it, but look deeper. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A natural-born citizen is born being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by virtue of the subjection of his/her parent(s), and a naturalized citizen takes an oath affirming subjection to the jurisdiction of the US. Walking across the border is not subjection to the jurisdiction of the US.

This is something that has been sorely needed for a long long time. It's going to be an uphill battle, but it'll be worth it.

TheRedneck


But it doesn't say "A natural-born citizen is born being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by virtue of the subjection of his/her parent(s)"

It simply states, "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."

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" takes place after the fact.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe




And still no concrete, solid and unbiased evidence or proof concerning my earlier question...


You question was, do I have a source. I gave you a source.



Why do you have to bring up the phrase “Brown people” all the things me?


I didn't. I entered a "brown people" conversation. Pay attention!



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Then why are held in US custody, and tried in US courts and do time in US jails for breaking US law, instead of merely being deported back to the jurisdiction that has authority over them?

Because they broke the law in the US, and because a certain group uses every point of legal trickery they can muster or imagine to make sure we can't just deport them.

Subject to jurisdiction does not mean one can be imprisoned for breaking the law. It means one has declared their intent to be subject to that jurisdiction according to the laws of that jurisdiction.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Because they broke the law in the US...


...To whose jurisdiction they are subject. On the other hand, diplomats and ambassadors are not. And, when they break US law, they are not arrested or held responsible, because they are not subject to US jurisdiction.



It means one has declared their intent to be subject to that jurisdiction according to the laws of that jurisdiction.


Nonsense.

edit on 26-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
What pictures? The staged MSM photos of shoe-less women and children? I note you didn't answer any of my questions.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lagomorphe




And still no concrete, solid and unbiased evidence or proof concerning my earlier question...


You question was, do I have a source. I gave you a source.



Why do you have to bring up the phrase “Brown people” all the things me?


I didn't. I entered a "brown people" conversation. Pay attention!



You are now stating that you have never mentioned “Brown people” in your posts but say you entered “Brown people” in conversation...

Look over your posts here on this thread and count how many times you repeated “Brown people”.

Your source is biased and your hate for your ELECTED president by the people is strong.

👍👍

Lags



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" takes place after the fact.

That makes no logical sense.

If subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States is obtained by virtue of being born in the United States, then why is it a separate requirement? Why even bother stating it? That's like saying "any person born in the US and given birth by a woman." Of course they were given birth by a woman! So why mention it?

A person born in the US to alien parents can be subject to the jurisdiction of the US if they choose to naturalize. Otherwise, they are still foreign nationals. Now, if you want to make the argument that a person born in the US to foreign nationals who later naturalizes is then a natural-born rather than a naturalized citizen, that might be an interesting discussion.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I. . er. . . ummm. . .

Will have to think about a coherent reply.


. . . . it's not separate, it is inclusive, hence the "and" within the sentence.


edit on 26-8-2019 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe




Your source is biased and your hate for your ELECTED president by the people is strong.


If you say so. But, my source is Donald Trump.




You are now stating that you have never mentioned “Brown people” in your posts


No I didn't. I didn't "bring up" brown people. I entered a conversation about "brown people". Pay attention!




Look over your posts here on this thread and count how many times you repeated “Brown people”.


Brown people! Brown people! Brown people! Brown people!

Yes, this is about brown people "walking across the border" and having babies. Who else, beside brown people are waking across the border and dropping babies?

That's how Trump throws red meat at this base, while you all play "I know you are, but what am I" and think your plausible deniability is so clever!


edit on 26-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Maybe on the face of it, but look deeper. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A natural-born citizen is born being subject to the jurisdiction of the US by virtue of the subjection of his/her parent(s)...


Everyone in the United States is subject to its jurisdiction with the exception of diplomats and their families which is what that phrase is addressing.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes. Trump's new push to abolish birth right citizenship is a directly outcome of his racist and bigoted agenda toward brown people "walking across the border" and giving birth to American citizens.

False the only bigot is you, looking at pictures and seeing only people's skin color. Trump is merely returning us to the rule of law, the law has been misinterpreted for too long. That's not racist. There are plenty of light skinned blue eyed Mexicans, and Central Americans and Latin Americans.

The fact you frame it as a race thing says a lot more about you than Donald Trump, who hasn't got a racist bone in his body.


edit on 26-8-2019 by funbobby because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Walk down to Mexico and drop a kid, see if they are Mexican citizens. Mexico will convict you of a felony, throw you in a dirty little cell to serve your time for a felony conviction, deport your kid back to the US, and then deport you when (and if) you ever get out of their jail.

Only in the US is it this way. No where else is that dumb.



There are 30 countries in the world that offer birthright citizenship, including the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Source





edit on 26-8-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: funbobby




There are plenty of light skinned blue eyed Mexicans, and Central Americans and Latin Americans.


No, there really aren't.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


To whose jurisdiction they are subject.

An alien who breaks the law can be deported as well. It's not just diplomats who are subject to deportation. Diplomats receive special diplomatic immunity from our laws as a consequence of their job functions. That has nothing to do with naturalization and citizenship.

When someone travels to another country, they typically need a passport or VISA. Those documents are proof that they accept temporary subjection to the jurisdictions they are visiting for the purpose of travel. A naturalized citizen takes an oath affirming acceptance of their subjugation to the jurisdiction of the US. A natural born citizen has accepted subjugation to the jurisdiction of the US by virtue of their parents' acceptance of the same (whether through naturalization or being here when the country was founded). An illegal alien has not accepted subjugation to the jurisdiction of the US by breaking US law... it just don't work that way.


Nonsense.

Oh! I just noticed who I was replying to. Yep, you're right, believe it all you want. No one but you has any idea what they are talking about.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


it's not separate, it is inclusive, hence the "and" within the sentence.

The conjunction "and" is a summation of two separate requirements, not an indication that both requirements are the same.

"I need to mow the yard and I am hungry." Is being hungry a direct requirement of mowing the yard?

TheRedneck







 
47
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join