Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: luthier

what law is that???

My position is not that there isn't a problem. There is.


My position is that there is a way to change or specify laws. Its done by Congress and needs very large majorities for a reason.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bluntone22

But I dont believe location should determine citizenship.

what should then?? my family has been in this nation since before it was a nation! they fought, and paid with their blood to create this nation, and protect it though these centuries. should I be considered a citizen and be allowed to vote? if I am understanding one of the posters, they seem not to think so. because if the answer is no, then I suggest we deport all those irish americans that came afterwards back to ireland. sure, there are some really good people among them, but then there's a few bad apples in there also.. not naming any names here....

What your ancestors did doesn't make you a good person. Good on them for their courage, and you should inherit their fortunes--but not their halos.

My great great grandfather rose from leutenant to Brigadier General in combat in the Union army. That doesn't make me "more" American than a legal immigrant who just took a citizenship class and swore the oath. At least they studied.

Citizenship should be about more than where your parents inserted tab A into slot B.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22

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.

That seems pretty clear on the topic. I don't see how anyone could argue there's grey area when it comes to birthright citizenship.

Answer me this batman.
The 2nd says that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed.
Do we have any infringements on that one?

I'll answer for you.. yes we do.

Why is the 14th so special it cant be subject to a different interpretation?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22

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.

That seems pretty clear on the topic. I don't see how anyone could argue there's grey area when it comes to birthright citizenship.

Answer me this batman.
The 2nd says that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed.

Far be it from me to pass up a good meme opportunity out of a typo.

a reply to: LABTECH767

No it wouldn't. The only time citizenship can be revoked unwillingly is if you lied on your application for US citizenship.

Absent that US citizens cannot have their citizenship revoked by the government. A US citizen can voluntarily give up their citizenship after filling out some forms.

The 14th amendment, as the article states,. was never intended to apply to foreigners who come to the US illegally. Also this issue goes beyond central and south America. Over the years it has become common place for Chinese and Russian nationals to come to the US to have children solely to get the US citizenship. The long game in doing that means eventually you will have a US citizen whose loyalty is to China / Russia, undermining things from the inside.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22

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.

That seems pretty clear on the topic. I don't see how anyone could argue there's grey area when it comes to birthright citizenship.

Answer me this batman.
The 2nd says that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed.
Do we have any infringements on that one?

I'll answer for you.. yes we do.

Why is the 14th so special it cant be subject to a different interpretation?

This is not accurate. The states and regions are allowed to make public safety laws.

In that case we have the 10th and the 2nd colliding.

originally posted by: dawnstar
seems to be a logical first step in the path to being able to restrict citizenship to a select few.

SPQR

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Why is the 14th so special it cant be subject to a different interpretation?

Because illegal aliens are becoming the Democrats largest voting block. Given the number of Blacks and Hispanics that have turned away from the Democratic party they need all the "voters" they can get.

It is up there with the electoral college working fine until Democrats lost the election but "won" the nonexistent national popular vote and who are calling for it to go away. Its up there with Democrats wanting to add more seats to the Supreme court because of the ones appointed to the bench wont support the illegal unconstitutional things Democrats do. Never mind the fact some Democrats have called for the removal of the judicial branch as a coequal branch of government.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I've gotten a kick out of all those who have no problems with a violation of the 1st or 2nd amendment crapping themselves and acting like strict Constitutionalists over the 14th.

If he goes through with it, at what point in history does this effect? If immigrants came after 1900 and had a child, does this effect them?

What is his time limit on when this executive order would be enforced? Does it effect certain people from certain countries or is anyone denied citizenship?

originally posted by: TinySickTears
Let's see how many of his supporters care about the constitution now.

This should be good

That's rich.

GUN CONTROL.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: LABTECH767

No it wouldn't. The only time citizenship can be revoked unwillingly is if you lied on your application for US citizenship.

Absent that US citizens cannot have their citizenship revoked by the government. A US citizen can voluntarily give up their citizenship after filling out some forms.

The 14th amendment, as the article states,. was never intended to apply to foreigners who come to the US illegally. Also this issue goes beyond central and south America. Over the years it has become common place for Chinese and Russian nationals to come to the US to have children solely to get the US citizenship. The long game in doing that means eventually you will have a US citizen whose loyalty is to China / Russia, undermining things from the inside.

The problem is a problem.

The solution is in the hands of Congress however. I would bet this is the position of scotus.

The 14th had several purposes. One was the native Americans were not citizens. But the largest was the devastating economic effect and loss of young working men after the civil war.

It is a problem. But I can probably bet safely scotus will say the idiot's in Congress are supposed to fix laws that have loopholes.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: TinySickTears
Let's see how many of his supporters care about the constitution now.

This should be good

That's rich.

GUN CONTROL.

10TH AMENDMENT.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Trump is wrong here.

It states rather simply in 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.

-Wiki

Sorry Donny, but you'll lose this fight.

Two problems.

1. Citizenship can be revoked at any time.

2. And subject to jurisdiction there of.

Which means. Ending anchor babies is within the states power.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Bluntone22

I've gotten a kick out of all those who have no problems with a violation of the 1st or 2nd amendment crapping themselves and acting like strict Constitutionalists over the 14th.

Same for me. Most Republicans seem totally immune to the fact their representatives do it..the liberals at least say they want to.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: TinySickTears
Let's see how many of his supporters care about the constitution now.

This should be good

That's rich.

GUN CONTROL.

10TH AMENDMENT.

Try again.

It's a states 10th amendment right to enforce their own borders.

Didn't stop the last administration for siccing the DOJ on them.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: TinySickTears
Let's see how many of his supporters care about the constitution now.

This should be good

That's rich.

GUN CONTROL.

10TH AMENDMENT.

Try again.

It's a states 10th amendment right to enforce their own borders.

Didn't stop the last administration for siccing the DOJ on them.

Ok?
And that was bad correct?

Hmm.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jtrenthacker

So what will it take to be a citizen then? Are we at our quota? Because if its not people born here then who are our future citizens? And are you guys ready yet to admit hes a moron?

We have more than enough people here.

I think its time we pick and choose the very best of the possible legal applicants for US citizenship and disregard the rest.

Cut out the dead wood.

My god this is popcorn fuel.

No man or woman should have the singular power to over rule anything-that is tyranny, not democracy.

If I could i'd ship every stupid person to Antarctica but if I got over ruled by the house of reps then so be it. I was lead to believe America was made by the people for the people, not made for Trump, by Trump. If I were to put forth a motion to declare Trump an assclown and was outvoted, so be it, that's how democracy works. But if I wrote a executive order stating that trump is an assclown how would his cheerleaders feel?

Is Trump an assclown? that's for YOU to decide, I would not override laws to prove that he is an assclown, that's not how democracy works.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22

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.

That seems pretty clear on the topic. I don't see how anyone could argue there's grey area when it comes to birthright citizenship.

Answer me this batman.
The 2nd says that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed.
Do we have any infringements on that one?

I'll answer for you.. yes we do.

Why is the 14th so special it cant be subject to a different interpretation?

This is not accurate. The states and regions are allowed to make public safety laws.

In that case we have the 10th and the 2nd colliding.

Until the scotus decisions in Heller and McDonald, you would be half right. Since those 2 rulings clarified the 2nd amendment, IE the right applies to the individual, things changed. Heller allows for certain gun control laws however the scotus established strict guidelines on what can be banned. Any weapon that is commonly available to the individual, like AR-15's, are protected and cant be banned.

While states can enact certain gun control laws it is very restrictive. We saw this in California where the state court system threw out a state law dealing with ammunition and magazine size as unconstitutional.

While the 10th amendment allows for states to enact certain laws it is limited when it comes to firearms and must defer to federal law (supremacy clause) and scotus rulings. Also because the manufacture of firearms uses components from different companies / manufacturing in different states it becomes a Federal issue under the commerce clause.