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: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

The only court cases on the subject imply illegals are not entitled to birthright citizenship.




posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Great, lets get rid of the guns too right?


Unless you are all just a bunch of gun owning racists...

Right?



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: mtnshredder

So, it IS just the southern border's brown people, then, that "walk across the border and give birth", that Trump was talking about.


IDK, I’m not racist like you. I don’t see color. I’m a white dude with a daughter that’s half Latino, Mexican as a matter of fact. You’re one of the most racist people on this board that’s always seeing color and pushing racism, you tell me bud.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

Your post makes no sense. Can you clarify how anchor babies and guns are related?



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Shakira, Xuxa, la Flaca, you should watch more Univision or actually travel to central or South America and stop being so racist and projecting it on the president, who won an Ellis Island award with Rosa Parks and his good friend Mohamed Ali.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Elk v. Wilkins and even more so United States v. Wong Kim Ark are both cases that imply illegals do not gain birthright citizenship. Legal residence and legally doing business in the US is what the Supreme Court said was what gave birthright citizenship.
edit on 26-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Do you believe that the USA doesn't have extradition treaties with other countries?

Of course we have extradition treaties. Read the excerpt you just posted. We extradite criminals who have broken US laws, not criminals who have broken other countries' laws so we can prosecute them for breaking the other country's laws. That was your statement. Can you provide a link to that or are you spouting BS?

If you're going to debate, understand what you write. Otherwise you just look foolish.

Now, are you through yet? This is tiring and I have reality to deal with.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterSpock



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
It makes sense, if you see through the trolllololololing...



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen




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.



The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Right after the civil war mind you. This amendment was passed to ensure that former slaves and their children were legally American citizens. Its original intention was never to create anchor babies.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Read the excerpt you just posted. We extradite criminals who have broken US laws, not criminals who have broken other countries' laws so we can prosecute them for breaking the other country's laws.


That's exactly what we do!



Extradition law in the United States is the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation.




If you're going to debate, understand what you write. Otherwise you just look foolish.


Ditto. Reading comprehension might come in handy for you too!

It's hard debate people who can't read. It's even harder to debate people that have no foundation for their assertions. Assertions like, the 14th Amendment suggests that VISA holders' who give birth on US soil, their babies qualify for birth right citizenship, but if their VISA is expired, they don't.

Pure nonsense!

If an undocumented immigrant breaks us law, that person is arrested, charged, tried and sentenced under US law, before they are deported, because they were under US jurisdiction.


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



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

You don't think that the migrants, who walk across the border and give birth, are the people that Trump was talking about, because you don't see color?



I’m a white dude with a daughter that’s half Latino, Mexican as a matter of fact.


So? Is your daughter an illegal migrant who walked across the border and gave birth? No? Then why bring her up? Pretending to be color blind doesn't make the people that Trump has singled out, walking across the border and giving birth, any less brown.


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



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Somekindofwizard

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen




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.



The 14th amendment was passed in 1868. Right after the civil war mind you. This amendment was passed to ensure that former slaves and their children were legally American citizens. Its original intention was never to create anchor babies.


While the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen anchor babies, it does not specify former slaves and their children.

Either we take the Bill of Rights as it was written or else dilute the entire document based on interpretation.


I agree that it was probably written for the reason you supplied, but it does not specify that.

The 2nd was written without a clause of assault weapons because they weren't around either and politicians have used this same reasoning to actually erode rights.

Again, I don't necessarily support this, but I have to abide by what the document says.



posted on Aug, 26 2019 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: mtnshredder





I’m a white dude with a daughter that’s half Latino, Mexican as a matter of fact.


Pretending to be color blind doesn't make the people that Trump has singled out, walking across the border and giving birth, any less brown.


Are you a special kind of stupid or what?
I'm not pretending, try that crap with someone else.

I think you're a racist who ask's really dumbass questions and I'm not going to try and debate with a loser troll that's only painfully obvious agenda the last few years has been to create division amongst this board. There's a really good reason why I don't usually, if ever, respond to your post and why I'm done with you now. Seriously, grow up and get a life.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

About time. This will stop pregnant women from trying to cross the border illegally to give their children U.S. citizenship. Who knows how many women have died, or lost their child because of the terrain they have to walk through... deserts, jungles, crossing rivers, etc, etc.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Surrendered to another country... not tried or sentenced by the US for violating the laws of another country as you said.

Immigrants caught crossing the border are immediately deported unless they know the magic word "asylum." Then we have this complex legal merry-go-round to keep them here.

I get it. You got nothing. I'm through with you. Have a nice day.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes, people coming across the border illegally to have a baby. Anyone doing it, no one is singled out. I would love you to show me where "brown" is mentioned.

The only one who keeps talking about skin color is you. When you are the only one who cares about the color of someone's skin it sounds like the problem lies with you.

Don't forget the US Supreme Court has already ruled and implied anchor babies are not US Citizens. Their ruling stated that immigrants who are not US citizens but are here legally domiciled and legally working grant citizenship. The parents of anchor babies do not meet that criteria.
edit on 27-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Actually they don't even have to do that. There is a whole business with US based midwifes going to Mexico and delivering babies and forging paperwork saying it happened in the US.



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 05:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh I absolutely agree, we have to go by what the Constitution says. Fortunately what it says is that anchor babies are not citizens.


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 US Supreme Court has already weighed in on this very matter, what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark the government argued that being a citizen of another country denied them being subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and thus denied their children citizenship. The SC ruled that since they are permanently domiciled in the US and are engaged in business in the US that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.


but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution


Illegal immigrants do not have a permanent domicil and residence in the US. They are expressly prohibited from carrying on business, any and all doing so is a crime. This would also mean someone on a tourist visa does not convey birthright citizenship. Every second of every day they are proving they are not under the jurisdiction of the US because they are breaking the law by the very nature of them being there.
edit on 27-8-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2019 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What are you talking about????


There are literally a million cases of the children of illegals becoming citizens..

The state all authorized their birth certificates and SS numbers..


That is precedence too..


But besides that I am pretty sure that has been challenged in court anyway and birthright citizenship was validated .



“Unsurprisingly, birthright citizenship came to America with English common law. Justice Horace Gray emphasized the need to interpret the legal meaning of "citizen" for constitutional purposes in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That case concerned a San Francisco man born to Chinese nationals whose citizenship status was called into question when he returned from a trip to China. Ark had never renounced ties to the United States or acquired conflicting allegiance to China, and the Supreme Court's 6-2 ruling in his favor established precedent in interpreting the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.”


What do you know... it has already been decided.



No one else thinks it is funny trump wasn’t pushing this until after he lost the congress and him making ANY laws is a joke..



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join