Moultrie Products
Trump wants to end birthright citizens
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Your fav poster 30-Oct-18
bigswivle 30-Oct-18
Dale Cover 30-Oct-18
Your fav poster 30-Oct-18
sleepyhunter 30-Oct-18
MT in MO 30-Oct-18
Bowfreak 30-Oct-18
Your fav poster 30-Oct-18
MK111 30-Oct-18
NvaGvUp 30-Oct-18
jjs 30-Oct-18
SmokedTrout 30-Oct-18
HDE 30-Oct-18
Missouribreaks 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
Shuteye 30-Oct-18
Will 30-Oct-18
slade 30-Oct-18
70lbdraw 30-Oct-18
Dale Cover 30-Oct-18
Trax 30-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 30-Oct-18
Rocky 30-Oct-18
South Farm 30-Oct-18
gadan 30-Oct-18
Dirk Diggler 30-Oct-18
Fivers 30-Oct-18
Trax 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
Your fav poster 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 30-Oct-18
BIGHORN 30-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 30-Oct-18
KSflatlander 30-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 30-Oct-18
Trax 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
JTV 30-Oct-18
K Cummings 31-Oct-18
gflight 31-Oct-18
HA/KS 31-Oct-18
HDE 31-Oct-18
slade 31-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 31-Oct-18
Glunt@work 31-Oct-18
Dale Cover 31-Oct-18
slade 31-Oct-18
Your fav poster 31-Oct-18
HDE 31-Oct-18
Dale Cover 31-Oct-18
elkmtngear 31-Oct-18
MT in MO 31-Oct-18
Mike in CT 31-Oct-18
itshot 31-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 31-Oct-18
Fivers 31-Oct-18
Dale Cover 31-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 31-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 31-Oct-18
bigswivle 31-Oct-18
TD 31-Oct-18
Spike Bull 01-Nov-18
Mike in CT 01-Nov-18
gflight 01-Nov-18
Your fav poster 01-Nov-18
K Cummings 01-Nov-18
Spike Bull 01-Nov-18
gflight 01-Nov-18
South Farm 01-Nov-18
Trax 01-Nov-18
JTV 01-Nov-18
Spike Bull 01-Nov-18
slade 01-Nov-18
DL 01-Nov-18
Spike Bull 01-Nov-18
TD 01-Nov-18
Fivers 01-Nov-18
NvaGvUp 01-Nov-18
Yendor 02-Nov-18
slade 02-Nov-18
Annony Mouse 04-Nov-18
Spike Bull 10-Nov-18
bad karma 10-Nov-18
30-Oct-18
By executive order trump plans on ending birthright citizenship. Why? 1) he may not have the authority and it may be unconstitutional BUT If this doesn’t prove trumps white nationalist tendencies, nothing will.

This is another dog whistle to his white supremacist base. Saying, in essence: “Don’t worry, I’ll make sure we reduce the number of brown people that speak a funny language from infesting our country”.

He won’t be able to do it, but the fact that he’s proposing it says it all.

From: bigswivle
30-Oct-18
More winning

30-Oct-18
Good policy IMO, especially when applied across the board to wherever the would be criminals originate from.

From: Dale Cover
30-Oct-18
Funny, did he say this only applies to those "Brown Skinned" folks, or does it apply across the board? If it's across the board, then how the hell is it targeted at "Brown skinned people"?

And the point is actually much simpler, it means the parents need to be here legally. What a completely radical idea!

30-Oct-18
Maybe you didn’t realize that the 14th amendment says clearly “a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens"

Or that Melania wasn’t a citizen when Barron was born.

He’d have to change the Constitution.

But let’s go with it:

Would he deport children of non citizens? I would be included of course. Would it be retroactive? How far back?

This white nationalist, trump is attacking the Constitution. What would actual “constitutional conservatives” say about it?

From: sleepyhunter
30-Oct-18
If neither parent is a citizen of the US and are simply going across the border to have a child on US soil and the taxpayers dime, the child should not be a citizen either. Very easy to understand.

From: MT in MO
30-Oct-18
The 14th was put in place to make the just freed slaves citizens. It has been carried over because the country has/was in the process of expanding its population. Lets see...No slaves to normalize anymore, population is growing just fine on its own...sounds like an obsolete amendment that needs to be removed...

From: Bowfreak
30-Oct-18
"He won’t be able to do it, but the fact that he’s proposing it says it all. "

Like Obama, he can do whatever he wants. It will be up to the court to decide if it is legal or not.

No birthright citizenship=less democrats=more winning.

30-Oct-18
Are you familiar with the process of removing “obsolete amendments?” And be careful what you ask for. Who determines what’s “obsolete” or not. The party that’s governing? The majority of Americans?

From: MK111
30-Oct-18
I agree with Trump's idea on birthright births. I see no common sense reason why when a non American gives birth in the USA should the child be considered to be a legal citizen. If you go back far enough everyone of us are from another country but we came here legally through the correct system.

From: NvaGvUp
30-Oct-18
"I would be included of course. "

Well, hot Damn!

In that case, let's do it!

From: jjs
30-Oct-18
The 14th amendment was originally for the black children born of slaves (post Civil War), this loop hole has been taken advantage since 1980 until now (over 330000+ births). Will end up in the Supreme Court and will be closed. Trump is finally going to take this unresolved problem on where others would not. One Mexico Cartel leader's wife slip into San Diego to have her baby to be nationalize several years ago. No.1 ecology threat is unrestricted immigration/refugee (101 ecology), if one is in favor for a 3rd world country then keep the door open and your kids will suffer for it and the progressives do not care except for the vote for a state control government and that is all they care about.

From: SmokedTrout
30-Oct-18
The fourteenth amendment clearly states: ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, " which you conveniently left out as "...".

By definition, illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, they are subjects of wherever they or their parents came from until their parents have been naturalized.

There is no need to remove the amendment, but there sure is a need to clarify it to those who hope to misinterpret it to their advantage.

From: HDE
30-Oct-18
My hell, when will the inmates quit running the asylum...?

That is not what the EO means. At all.

30-Oct-18
End it....

From: JTV
30-Oct-18
End the anchor baby crap NOW !!

From: Shuteye
30-Oct-18
I saw a lawyer explain the 14th amendment this morning and I put it on another post. If you are in the country legally and not a citizen, your baby is a citizen. If you are in the country illegally, not a citizen, your baby does not get citizenship. They say this will hold up in court and quite a few countries have the same policy and do not give illegal's babys citizenship.

From: Will
30-Oct-18
I was reading this with interest. I just saw this on my AP newsfeed this AM while in a tree (no deer, dang it - or perhaps I missed one while reading ha ha ha). Part of me agree's with the concept. I need to read more to really understand the proposal. It would be a substantial change for sure.

That said, when I read the 14th amendment stuff above... I was strongly struck by the parallel's between this discussion and others about amendments. In particular, I've seen what are essentially VERBATIM comments in various places for why the second amendment should be changed. It doesnt apply any more, it's being abused, etc.

I'd be REALLY careful with trying to change amendments. If it's done, it needs to be absolutely a million percent bullet proof and something a large portion of the population supports (not just a liberal or conservative portion).

Otherwise lining up and saying: X amendment can never, ever, ever be touched... Is just clear biased goo.

I need to read a lot more on this proposal to understand what is being suggested.

Will

From: slade
30-Oct-18
No need to make a mountain out of a molehill, the 14th amendment has/had nothing to do with illegals and anchor babies, until the democrats and their living breathing amendment mumbo job declared it to.........

From: 70lbdraw
30-Oct-18
First of all, explain the "dog whistle" and the scientific proof it actually means squat!

From: Dale Cover
30-Oct-18
Let's see, unless I'm mistaken, Donald Trump (Barron's father) was a US Citizen. Melania was here Legally. So what the F was your point again?

From: Trax
30-Oct-18
As MT correctly stated the 14th was directly aimed at the slavery issue. The whole anchor baby issue has been an absolute joke. You squat and drop a kid on this soil that kid should have the sole citizenship of its parents. It is simple common sense. LONG overdue to end this. Thank you President Trump!

From: Grey Ghost
30-Oct-18
As I understand it, the 14th Amendment was written and adopted at a time when there was no such thing as a "illegal" immigrant. All immigrants were here legally, but not all had citizenship status. Therefore the birthright clause applied to all immigrants.

In later years, we established a legal process for immigration, thereby establishing a new category of "illegal" immigrants who didn't follow the process. IMO, the 14th Amendment should have been amended to clarify whether the birthright clause applied to this new category of immigrants. Perhaps Trump can make that happen.

Matt

From: Rocky
30-Oct-18
Read the 14th amendment once again because you're reading comprehension skills are lacking and are in need of repair. Australia, GB and many other top tier countries have changed their laws to permit EXACTLY what Trump WILL do. They have a firm grasp of mathematics and economics. People wonder why America is so far down the totem pole in world academics.

The Rock

From: South Farm
30-Oct-18
"He won’t be able to do it, but the fact that he’s proposing it says it all."

The fact that YOU say he "won't be able to do it" tells me there's a damn good chance he will. HERE! HERE!

From: gadan
30-Oct-18
Bravo again, Mr. Trump! It is simply insanity to allow illegals to enter our country at all, let alone for the main purpose of downloading a kid so we can support them for life! Remove the incentive and a lot of these problems go away.

From: Dirk Diggler
30-Oct-18
Telling this crowd you would be deported under this idea doesn't help your argument. Know your audience.

From: Fivers
30-Oct-18
This timing is incredible, I was talking with my 12 year old daughter on our way to school this morning, before I even heard of this, about this exact same thing. The reason I started talking about it, was because talk radio was talking about the illegals voting for elections in San Francisco because their kids were in the community and schools so their parents should have a right to say what happens there.

My question is, since the 14th Amendment is actually being looked at and pretty clearly states that just because your baby is born here, that doesn't automatically make them a US citizen if you are NOT HERE LEGALLY, what is going to happen to all the people that have been born here over the last 40+ years that have been assumed to be US citizens and have gotten US citizen benefits their entire lives? Could any new action be retroactive? Because, according to the Constitution, they are not US citizens and really have no rights here, it doesn't matter how long they have lived here. I think that the best thing they could do at this point, is put a retroactive date, be it 5 years or 40 years, it really doesn't matter, then give those families something like 2 years to go through the process to become legal US citizens. If they don't complete that task, kick them out!

From: Trax
30-Oct-18
Another great example of a president in President Trump that does not care about the Party or the political old establishment ruling class. He cares about the American citizen first and foremost. Many candidates in the past talked about doing this, but then all was quiet when it came time to implement. This is simple common sense and about time!

From: JTV
30-Oct-18
this is a long read, but Walpin explains it really well.. fedsoc.org.

The 14th Amendment Does Not Grant Citizenship To Babies Born to Illegal Or Transient Immigrants on U.S. Soil ..... Gerald Walpin

The legal debate over so-called birthright citizenship has lately been spotlighted because of presidential candidate Donald Trump’s statements about immigrants and foreigners.1 Mr. Trump’s position totally ignores that the words on the Statue of Liberty explain why America is the great country that it is: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”2 Our country was literally founded by immigrants fleeing religious persecution, followed by waves of more refugees and others fleeing material deprivation. Because it accepted millions upon millions of immigrants, the United States remains the world’s sole rightful owner of the descriptive word, first applied in 1831 by Alexis de Tocqueville: “exceptional.”3

The meaning of the birthright provision in the 14th Amendment has been specifically put in issue by Trump’s questioning whether his opponent Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada to an American citizen allows him to be considered to be a “natural born citizen”—a prerequisite for serving as President. But current events also warrant a fuller examination of the provision as it is being invoked to provide U.S. citizenship to millions of non-Americans. Websites in many foreign countries induce pregnant women to come to and pay up to $80,000 to “maternity hotels” in the United States, on the promise of American citizenship to the newly-born child who then returns to the foreign country.4 Mexican pregnant women cross the border to give birth in near-border U.S. hospitals for the same purpose.5 Many illegal immigrants in this country have children with the expectation that the child will be a U.S. citizen at birth, and thereby anchor the parents to be able to remain here.6

I. The Rule Of Law Must Control Aside from the contributions of immigrants to our country, there is another fact that has made the United States exceptional that overrides all else: from the very first day of our country, we have lived by the rule of law, with our Constitution being the supreme and controlling law. That means that the words of the Constitution control, and that they must be construed as the authors understood and intended—not as current judges might prefer.

One famous Supreme Court Justice, Hugo Black, well described the reason for this rule of construction: “I have an abiding idea that, if the Framers had wanted to let judges write the Constitution on any such day-to-day beliefs of theirs, they would have said so instead of so carefully defining their grants and prohibitions in a written constitution.”7 Oliver Wendell Holmes, another respected Justice, similarly instructed that a judge must construe a provision based on “what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used.”8 The proper interpretation of a constitutional provision is best determined by abiding the words in the provision, the authors’ expressed statements as to what they thought it meant, and consistency with other relevant laws, both those enacted relatively contemporaneously and those then held still binding.

II. Applying Rule Of Law Principles to the Birthright Citizenship Debate Applying these rule of law principles, how should we construe the words of the Birthright Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution? Does the clause, as some now assert, give citizenship to a child on the sole condition that he or she was born on United States soil, even if (i) born to a foreign citizen mother who promptly returns to her native land where the child also is a citizen of that foreign country, or (ii) born to foreign citizens while they are illegally in this country? Let’s together do the analysis that is necessary to determine what the rule of law requires.

We start with the relevant words of the 14th Amendment ratified on July 9, 1868. It requires that two conditions—not just birth in this country—be present for citizenship to be granted: (i) the baby must be “born … in the United States;” and (ii) when born, the baby must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. A cursory glance at the words themselves makes it clear that those who argue that mere birth within the United States results in citizenship fail reasonably to address this second requirement.9

Two Supreme Court opinions, both issued within the decade after ratification of the 14th Amendment are particularly relevant to construing the meaning of the Birthright Citizenship provision. Note that, because the meaning of the Birthright Citizenship provision did not determine the outcome in either case, the Court’s statements in both decisions are dicta, not binding holdings. But the Justices’ words should be considered authoritative insofar as they were expressed by Justices who lived through the enactment of the provision they were construing, and thus were well positioned to comprehend the meaning and intention of the words. These Court-expressed views on the meaning of the Birthright Citizenship provision should also be considered authoritative because the Justices were unanimous in making the statement in one case, and, in the other, the dissenters did not disagree with that particular point.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases,10 the Court wrote that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother. Then, two years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the Court unanimously and expressly recognized the existence of “doubts” that citizenship was automatic for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” after noting that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.11 These two Supreme Court rejections of automatic birthright citizenship for anyone born in this country, without regard to the parents’ citizenship status, are supported by facts undoubtedly known to those Justices, and certainly known to us.

During the same session in which Congress approved the 14th Amendment, it had already enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1866, providing that, for a U.S.-born baby to be a citizen, the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”12 A child, although born in this country, who, after birth, returns with foreign citizen parents to, and lives in, the foreign country of which the child remains a citizen, is subject to that foreign power. Thus, that statute mandated that such U.S.-born children be denied U.S. citizenship. The record makes clear that, in considering the 14th Amendment, Congress did not repudiate the statute it had just enacted. Not even a single member introduced a bill to rescind that legislation. The absence of any attempts to walk back the statute suggests that Congress remained satisfied with that law, and that the same-session approval of the 14th Amendment did not signal any change of view.

Despite these facts, some might still question why, with this statute already enacted, it was necessary to adopt the 14th Amendment so shortly thereafter, if not to change the condition for granting citizenship. Others might ask why the 14th Amendment did not copy the negative requirement that the baby “not [be] subject to any foreign power,” but instead substituted the affirmative requirement that the baby must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. If one were to stop the analysis with the substitution, it certainly would leave reasonable questions. However, the statements made by the proposers of the 14th Amendment provide clear answers: The proposers sought to prevent any future Congress, by a simple majority vote, from altering or rescinding the civil rights statute.13 In contrast, altering or rescinding a constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures—a vastly increased burden and, as history has shown, seldom obtained.

We do not know the specific reason for the change in phraseology. However, it is irrelevant in our search for the meaning of the Amendment, because Senator Jacob Howard, the Amendment’s co-author, described it as “simply declaratory of … the law of the land already,”14 referring to the Civil Rights Act already enacted. Thus, he was confirming that the 14th Amendment, with slightly different wording, was intended to constitutionalize the statute’s requirement that the baby must “not [be] subject to any foreign power.”

This conclusion that no change of meaning was intended was also confirmed by the provision’s prime author, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it voted, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required being “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” meaning, as he put it, “not owing allegiance to anyone else.”15 As Thomas Jefferson earlier wrote, “aliens are the subjects of a foreign power,”16 and thus owe allegiance to another country; hence, the alien’s children are not U.S. citizens simply by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. Furthermore, Senator Howard’s explanatory words are nearly identical to the Civil Right Act’s words “not [be] subject to any foreign power,” making explicit that the 14th Amendment was intended to put in Constitutional “stone” what Congress had first enacted as legislation. Applying that meaning, the U.S.-born child, returning to the parent’s country, is a citizen of and subject to that foreign country, and thus does not meet this requirement for birthright citizenship.

In its 1884 decision in Elks v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court adopted Senator Trumbull’s formulation that, to receive birthright citizenship, the parents must “not merely [be] subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and not subject to any foreign power,” as well as owe the U.S. “direct and immediate allegiance.”17 Parents and child, returning to their native land of which they are citizens, remain subject to that foreign power and must show it allegiance, and thus do not give the U.S. “immediate allegiance.” An immigrant who violated U.S. law by entering or overstaying illegally also fails to show “allegiance,” which by definition requires loyalty and obedience to the law.18 William Blackstone, the famed English legal commentator in the period the 14th Amendment was enacted, and to whom American lawyers, judges, and legislators then repeatedly cited and quoted in decisions, legal briefs, and statements in the legislatures, defined “allegiance” in this context as requiring that the subject “will demean himself faithfully.”19 An illegal alien, breaking America’s laws, by definition, certainly does not meet that requirement. Further, an illegal alien, while subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, is not “completely subject to [U.S.] political jurisdiction” and, as a citizen of a foreign country, remains “subject to [a] foreign power”—thus falling outside of the Court’s stated requirements for birthright citizenship.

Most proponents of the assertion that the Birthright Citizenship provision grants citizenship to all non-diplomats’ babies born in the U.S. ignore the three Supreme Court decisions discussed above, and instead rely on the Court’s 1898 decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.20 In that case, the Court granted citizenship to a child born in the U.S. to alien Chinese parents. But the Court made clear that its decision does not apply to the birth to a foreign alien mother who either promptly returns to the foreign country or is in this country illegally and therefore, under law, subject to deportation back to her foreign country. The Court expressly conditioned its decision on the facts that the parents “have a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business.”21 Neither the parents nor the child are permanently domiciled here when, after birth, the parents and child return to and continue their allegiance to the parents’ native country. In Wong Kim Ark, the child who had been born on U.S. soil to Chinese parents had traveled to China, but only for temporary visits, and this was found not to undercut his claim to birthright citizenship due to his continued permanent and legal domicile in the U.S.22 Illegal status is more like returning to the foreign country than it is like temporary visits, for purposes of the Birthright Citizenship clause. An illegal alien is legally subject to deportation every day she is present on U.S. soil, unless she has been granted relief from deportation. Such a situation cannot be described as “a permanent domicil[e] and residence in the United States,” given that “permanent” is defined as “lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely.”23

Another reason the Birthright Citizenship provision does not give automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal or transient aliens is that there is no evidence that those who voted to adopt the 14th Amendment even considered such a scenario. The purpose of this portion of the 14th Amendment was, as one senator put it during the Senate debate on the 14th Amendment, “simply to declare that Negroes shall be citizens of the United States,”24 and therefore guaranteed equal citizenship rights in the aftermath of the Civil War.25

Furthermore, they could not have intended to grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens because no category of “illegal aliens” then existed. In 1866, when Congress approved the amendment, immigration was essentially unhindered; any immigrant was a legal immigrant, entitled to citizenship after a minimum residence period.26 The first category of “illegal alien” was not created until 1875—nine years later—when federal law denominated the first aliens prohibited from entering; the only ones prohibited even then were convicts, prostitutes, and “orientals.”27 Ellis Island, which housed the first federal immigration inspection station, was not opened until 1892.28 I have not seen any explanation from those who argue that the 14th Amendment provides citizenship to illegal or transient aliens’ babies born here that reconciles that position with the undisputed fact that no category known as “illegal alien” was then even imagined to exist.

The fact that there were no illegal immigrants when the 14th Amendment was enacted is not the only basis for concluding that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to a child born to transient aliens. To hold otherwise would require attributing to the enactors of this Amendment the intent to scuttle a provision of the original Constitution that was sacrosanct at that time and has remained so until the current date. Article II of the Constitution prohibits anyone who is not “a natural born citizen” from being president. John Jay, later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote a letter to George Washington, then presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, that sheds light on the purpose of this provision. He suggested that it would “be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government.”29 Such a “strong check” would be non-existent if a child of foreign parents, who left the U.S. following birth and lived as a citizen of that foreign land, owing it allegiance, could return at age 35, or even 20, and become president. That inconsistent continuing provision in the Constitution—not only never questioned, but specifically mentioned during the debate on the 14th Amendment30—counsels a rejection of the theory that the Birthright Citizenship provision granted citizenship to any child of non-diplomat foreign citizens born in the U.S.

Proponents of the broad view of birthright citizenship also err in asserting their premise that two clauses of the Amendment section that contains the Birthright Citizenship provision—“within the U.S.” and “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction”—are synonymous as applied to illegal and transient immigrants. But the Amendment’s authors, in fact, made clear that they did not believe that “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” meant the same as “within the U.S.” In the same section of this Amendment, it guaranties “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The “within” phrase was defined by co-author Senator Howard as meaning “all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction,” meaning that anyone physically present must be treated equally under our laws.31 In contrast, the Court has stated and later reaffirmed that “subject to jurisdiction” means much more: “owing … direct and immediate allegiance.”32 No allegiance, and certainly not immediate allegiance, is given by a parent who, following birth, returns with her newly born baby to live in the country of her citizenship; nor does one who remains here in violation of law show such allegiance.

Further, Congress knows what words to use if it wants to declare that every non-citizen born within the United States is a citizen. The Indian Citizenship Act of 192433 provides that “all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States.” There is no reason to believe that the Congress of 1866 was any less able to use such words if it intended to provide citizenship to all persons born within the territorial limits of the United States. That it did not use such words requires the conclusion that no such all-encompassing grant of citizenship was intended.

I am not the first person to reach this conclusion as to the meaning of the Birthright provision. In 1873—only five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment—the U.S. Attorney General provided an official government opinion: “The word ‘jurisdiction’ must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of the amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction only to a limited extent.”34 Being subject only to a limited extent does not meet the requirement of “absolute and complete jurisdiction” necessary to obtain citizenship.

III. Applying The Rule Of Law In A Fair Manner Many proponents of the view that the Birthright Citizenship provision grants citizenship to any person born in this country, no matter the circumstances, argue that any other interpretation would cause this country to act inhumanely towards millions who have relied upon it. An example of a child born here 40 years ago to a then-illegal alien, and who lived here, and only here, as an American, knowing and speaking only English, being forcibly deported to a country this now-adult never knew, conjures up a totally unacceptable picture. I agree that it is unacceptable, but is not the necessary consequence of enforcing the 14th Amendment as intended by those who enacted it.

Realistically, the Supreme Court must decide this issue. To bring this issue before the Court, Congress must legislate that a child born on U.S. soil to an illegal or transient alien without domiciliary attachment and total allegiance to the United States is not thereby a U.S. citizen. If an illegal or transient alien thereafter gives birth, under this proposed new statute, she would be denied citizenship for the baby. Undoubtedly someone would then represent her to seek the courts’ help to obtain citizenship papers. In that way, a ruling on the meaning of this constitutional provision would be obtained after, presumably, it winds its way through the courts to the Supreme Court.

In the proposed enacted statute, Congress, I suggest, would be correct in preventing inhumane treatment of persons long ago born who have lived lawfully as American citizens. That can be accomplished by including a clause denying retroactive effect to children who were born in this country, prior to the statute’s enactment, and still resided here without any felony convictions. We would thus avoid repeated future violation of the true meaning and intent of our Constitution, without creating an inhumane picture.

30-Oct-18
It is my greatest joy that you anticipate that I would be deported. Further, this is trump theater at its worst. He will never do it, can’t ever do it, without the entire amendment process.

Once again, he’s trying to con people.

He wants you to stay off: how he's going to eradicate people's healthcare, the tax cuts were only for the Uber rich , his Saudi pals are dismembering US residents alive,Russia supports him, he's been committing tax fraud for years, his businesses are benefitting from his being Pot-us

From: JTV
30-Oct-18

JTV's embedded Photo
JTV's embedded Photo
more bull crap from the head bull crapper ^^ ... How many more lies and stupid stuff you going to ooze out today PutZ ??

Momo wants to play a game with you ..

From: Annony Mouse
30-Oct-18
Poor Putzie...his belief in a "living Constitution" has come to bite him in his ass.

The 14th Amendment's writers never intended it to provide citizenship to anyone who just crossed the borders. In fact, there is little evidence of the 14th being used to provide citizenship until the noted swimmer Ted Kennedy pushed this meme.

Trump can issue an executive order denying any and all illegals who have entered this country (which would include any anchors dropped) the right of citizenship. Of course, the no-border-register-all-illegals-as-party-member Democrats will find a liberal judge somewhere who will attempt to stay the EO. However, by doing so, this will be addressed by the SCOTUS and finally settled. Unfortunately for the zedian nation, the balance has shifted on the court due to Trump's nominations with judges who hold the Constitution as the foundation...not what the sentiment of the liberals who believe that it is malleable and rights can be found by pulling them out of their asses. Hold your breath that RBG can stay awake.

Trump is a lot smarter than the left gives him credit and he has Trumped them again.

From: JTV
30-Oct-18
White "base" my dupa.... the approval of Trump is now 40% with blacks (Rassmusen today), and has more of an approval with hispanics than any Potus of modern times ...

From: JTV
30-Oct-18
this whole birthright BS is to benefit liberals and got its foothold in the 60's ... the original intent of the 14th had to do with slaves.. not ILLEGALS ...heck, China and Russia and hispanic/S. American countries and others use this scam to bring illegals into this country to drop their kid on US soil ... this whole process needs to come to a halt ...

From: Annony Mouse
30-Oct-18

Annony Mouse's Link
From link:

Earlier this month, Anton penned an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he argued that birthright citizenship was not a constitutional requirement.

In his op-ed, Anton wrote, Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright:

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

. . . . Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857’s disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

That definition is the amendment’s very first sentence: “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 amendment clarified for the first time that federal citizenship precedes and supersedes its state-level counterpart. No state has the power to deny citizenship, hence none may dispossess freed slaves.

Anton went on to make a distinction between “subject to the jurisdiction” and “subject to American law.”

Second, the amendment specifies two criteria for American citizenship: birth or naturalization (i.e., lawful immigration), and being subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We know what the framers of the amendment meant by the latter because they told us. Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, a principal figure in drafting the amendment, defined “subject to the jurisdiction” as “not owing allegiance to anybody else” — that is, to no other country or tribe.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a sponsor of the clause, further clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Yet for decades, U.S. officials — led by immigration enthusiasts in and out of government — have acted as though “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means “subject to American law.” That is true of any tourist who comes here.

The framers of the 14th Amendment added the jurisdiction clause precisely to distinguish between people to whom the United States owes citizenship and those to whom it does not. Freed slaves definitely qualified. The children of immigrants who came here illegally clearly don’t.

And...

The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

From: BIGHORN
30-Oct-18
It's about damn time!

From: Annony Mouse
30-Oct-18
Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be '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.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

References available at link.

Note: It was recognized that native American Indians were excluded from coverage under the 14th amendment but subsequently included by following legislation. The Supreme Court basically reaffirmed that to claim citizenship, one must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US government...something that an illegal cannot claim being a citizen of another government. To be covered under US jurisdiction, one must have legal status within the country.

From: KSflatlander
30-Oct-18
Good luck with changing the constitution with an executive order.

From: Annony Mouse
30-Oct-18
Doesn't have to change Constitution as it clearly states that illegals (persons not subject to US; i.e. citizens of another country) do not qualify. Wasn't really a problem until Teddy Kennedy promoted the idea. Two SCOTUS decisions show the intent as described above in numerous posts.

From: Trax
30-Oct-18
Close to a half million babies are born each year in this country to illegals. We are talking about billions of dollars. Not to mention both legal and illegals coming here simply to drop their anchor baby. Birthright citizenship is NOT in the Constitution. Subject to the jurisdiction is the key here. It would be nice to get it done by statute, but if it needs to be done by Executive Order so be it. It needs to be done and should have been handled decades ago is the bottom line.

From: JTV
30-Oct-18

JTV's Link
https://www.newsweek.com/feds-raid-maternity-hotels-birth-tourists-777643

From: JTV
30-Oct-18

JTV's Link
https://www.thedailybeast.com/two-week-old-baby-among-5-slashed-by-knife-at-ny-daycare

From: JTV
30-Oct-18

JTV's Link
https://www.imtj.com/news/trump-plans-combat-birth-tourism/

From: K Cummings
31-Oct-18
"Good luck with changing the constitution with an executive order.

He's not trying to, which makes what seems to be quite stupid on the surface, actually quite brilliant.

Trump knows that such an EO will be fought...all they way up to the SC and they will be forced to finally interpret what the 14th amendment actually means.

There are many that have never felt that the 14A ever provided for such an abuse, and finally it will be determined once and for all.

Pretty damn smart if you ask me...especially in light of the courts current makeup.

KPC

From: gflight
31-Oct-18
"American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents."

From: HA/KS
31-Oct-18
For about 100 years, the 14th did not give citizenship to children born to foreigners in the US.

An administrative decision in the Kennedy/Johnson era ignored that many years of precedent - falsely interpreting the amendment to further their political agenda.

From: HDE
31-Oct-18
"Note: It was recognized that native American Indians were excluded from coverage under the 14th amendment but subsequently included by following legislation. The Supreme Court basically reaffirmed that to claim citizenship, one must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US government..."

Which is why their claim to sovereignty is nothing but smoke and mirrors to get ahead in the political realm of things for special favors, considerations, and benefits.

From: slade
31-Oct-18

slade's Link
Mark Levin: Paul Ryan Is ‘Utterly Wrong’ on Birthright Citizenship

From: Annony Mouse
31-Oct-18
There have been discussions about the 14th A and anchor babies here on the CF going back for years as has the topic arisen in public debate even in Congress. The American public has long been aware of this problem and nothing has ever been done to address this issue.

The intent of the 14th A is historically clear...provide full citizenship rights to the freed slaves. And when the courts decided that the 14th did not apply to the Native American population, Congress rectified that lapse. Those "not subject" were clearly described by Senator Jacob Howard as not being able to obtain citizenship by birth.

Trump, making an Executive Order to use original intent of the 14th Amendment, will have accomplished what the empty words of politicians have spouted about by forcing the judicial system to address it (ending up in the SCOTUS) or Congress to pass legislation.

The putzian proREgressive Democrats only hope is for the SCOTUS to decide in their favor...which is why if RGB either dies or retires, will make the next SCOTUS nomination even dirtier and less civil than Kavenaugh's. Of course, the focus from them will be the protection of illegal immigration anchors...something that has little support from the general populace.

Elections have consequences.

Putzie et. al. have sadly come to believe what the proRegressives and media have pushed as news: Trump is dumb.

I think that the coming EO will prove them wrong yet again. Simply, Trump is forcing the other branches to finally address this issue. Hopefully, we will see the concept of a "living" Constitution be dealt a death blow and that our government need to heed and obey the document created by our founders.

From: Glunt@work
31-Oct-18
This is another win for Trump. If not in in court, it will be in the public forum

From: Dale Cover
31-Oct-18
It's also very similar to what Trump was trying to do with immigration.... Make Congress finally do its damn job and pass legislation clarifying it. And they've fallen down on the job and have failed to do so. Heaven forbid these guys have to show some backbone and make a decision.

From: slade
31-Oct-18

31-Oct-18
Will this be applied retro?

31-Oct-18
interesting question right there.....you might have to undo generations of citizenship to make it retroactive.

31-Oct-18
How about we look up the Congressional Record of 1866 to see what the authors of the 14th Amendment actually said it means?

From: HDE
31-Oct-18
Would making it retroactive be dancing dangerously close to the Ex Post Facto clause (Article 1, Sec 9)?

From: Dale Cover
31-Oct-18
Posting again from Jack's post above, since YFP can't seem to comprehend or read the entire thing before he posts...

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing: Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

From: elkmtngear
31-Oct-18
"YFP can't seem to comprehend or read the entire thing before he posts"...

He can't help it, he's just an educator...Oy Vay!

From: MT in MO
31-Oct-18
From what I am understanding from other sources is that no one used the 14th amendment to gain citizenship until the middle 1960's. This was a new concept of how the 14th should be applied sometime around the JFK and LBJ administrations. If one remembers their history this was also the time when all the civil rights stuff was happening. The democrats owned congress and would not pass the civil rights bill without almost full Republican support. Also, recall LBJ's famous quote (paraphrasing) "When I'm done, those N....'rs will be voting democratic for 200 years!"...

It would appear that the amendment has been being used incorrectly for almost my entire life. It will be interesting to see what the courts have to say about all this after Trump does his EO...because you know it is going to the courts...

From: Mike in CT
31-Oct-18
Certain liberals understand fairly well; it's when what they understand undercuts the way they want things to be that the defenses come up.

First to the plate is obfuscation followed closely by the obligatory charge of one of the "isms" or "obes" (pick any it really doesn't make any difference).

It's amazing the literary contortions one can deploy when one simply lacks the integrity to admit their emperor has no clothes....

I'd say the entertainment value can make up for the insult to the intelligence of the rationale but in this case I'd put 1st grade finger-painting a few notches above this collection of dim bulbs.....

From: itshot
31-Oct-18
mike, that's so offensive to some, somehow, some way, somewhere, some day....in some far-off land

From: Annony Mouse
31-Oct-18
This link has a number of commentaries and references about the 14th A and birthright citizenship with references. Worth spending a little time if one wants further education. However, warning: this is well beyond the putzian level of intellectual comprehension.

The Case Against Birthright Citizenship

From: Fivers
31-Oct-18
I don’t know if you could go full or partial retro? The only way that you could do it, would be if you gave them an option to become citizens within a certain timeframe. You could make a simpler, easier way to make it happen, but give them a deadline to have it done. If they don’t do it, they don’t really want to be legal citizens. Legally, they aren’t citizens now, even though they have been treated as such.

31-Oct-18
If you are going to try and circumvent the 14th Amendment with an executive order, how long will it be before you try and curtail the 2nd Amendment and First Amendment? Just asking for the NRA.

Be careful what you wish for , that slippery slope is a doozy

From: Dale Cover
31-Oct-18
Circumvent what? The 14th already has the language in it and it was written to be interpreted the way Trump is pushing.

If you can't see that, then your reading comprehension falls well below the threshold to be a teacher. Ah, but again, stating the obvious.

From: Annony Mouse
31-Oct-18
Paul has obviously never bothered to read the Constitution. Nor the historical documentation and commentary available. He doesn't care or have any intellectual honesty. Heck, how many times have references been provided on this thread such that he doesn't even have to search. He is just lazy and parrots what his leaders promote on media.

His talking points are sent to him every day from the central proREgressive committee.

31-Oct-18
Interesting how the second amendment is to be taken at its word and the 14th is open to trumps interpretation.

From: Annony Mouse
31-Oct-18
Couldn't make even one lap, Putzie.

Putzie received one, too...and ran screaming out of his house.

From: bigswivle
31-Oct-18
Lmfao!!! @ a troll speaking on the 2nd amendment on a hunting website. Deaf ears here bud. Lololololololol

From: TD
31-Oct-18
Intentionally obtuse. To put it kindly. The EO will go to court. Likely the SCOTUS. It's constitutionality will be determined there. Not by what liberal leftists WANT it to be.... but by what it is, the words used and the context thereof. ALL of them, not just a couple handpicked ones. I can live with that, for or against..... like it or not. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. It's the very foundation of the country.

You're upset because you KNOW what it says and what it means. You just WISH it weren't so. Rules. Laws. Applied equally, across the board.

WRT the NRA they have gone to court many many times, all the way to SCOTUS as they are constitutional issues. They win in nearly every case. To say what they have won is "unconstitutional" and not to the letter of the law is idiocy of the highest level. Or just plain lies. Or both.

This matter will go face the same constitutional tests. To the letter of the law.

01-Nov-18
To add to the many explanations of the truth of the 14th let me point out that it was designed to protect the slave's children from being marginalized by the slave owning southern Democrats!

From: Mike in CT
01-Nov-18
The problem with being a "one-trick pony" is once everyone figures out the trick you're consigned to eternal irrelevance.

It is cute though to see the inevitable tantrum that follows the dawning of that realization.....

From: gflight
01-Nov-18
Democraps are reading into it just like they do the 2nd with the militia. It says what it means Dumbocrats, bless you hearts.....

"The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."

Clarifying a meaning of an amendment by executive order is a great move for reasons people mentioned above. Wish Trump would do it for the 2nd but we know how he FEELS about that one......;^) Whoa pony.

01-Nov-18
From KellyAnn Conways husband:

o say that “illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is just drivel. Were that true, then the government wouldn’t be able to arrest them. Surely that’s not the President’s position. Clearly he has no comprehension of the words he’s using

Should be interesting breakfast conversation this morning in the Conway house.

Can’t say it any better than that.

From: K Cummings
01-Nov-18

K Cummings's Link
"During the debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Howard argued for including the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:"

...Every person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

Howard clarified his statement during the original congressional debate over the amendment describing the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause."[3] Senator Reverdy Johnson said in the debate: "Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States ... If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States, there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."

01-Nov-18
Yep, it is very clear, like the whole rest of the Constitution, to anyone who looks into the background and meaning at the time it was written. Of course, you cannot expect that from those who barely read the Constitution at all, let alone with the intention of truly understanding the founders thinking.

From: gflight
01-Nov-18
Who is Kelly Ann Conways husband?? Besides being not very knowledgeable?

Territorial and Political jurisdiction are two different things....

From: South Farm
01-Nov-18
Maybe if the Constitution was written in Spanish more people could understand it better.

From: Trax
01-Nov-18
It is very clear the intent of the 14th in regards to jurisdiction and subject of. If it needs to go to the Supreme Court so be it, the high court will side with President Trump and hundreds of constitutional attorneys across America. We can't expect America hating Syrian pigs to understand the context much less the anchor baby as an issue in general. Same for the typical blind dumb sheep liberal. They believe what a physical and intellectual midget like flamin Don Lemon tells them.

From: JTV
01-Nov-18

JTV's Link
very good article ..

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-and-horowitz-yes-trump-can-end-birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants-with-an-executive-order/

01-Nov-18
From JTV's link:

"Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”"

"For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens."

From: slade
01-Nov-18

From: DL
01-Nov-18

DL's embedded Photo
DL's embedded Photo
For some reason my phone would not show salt ofnthe other post of this.

01-Nov-18
This being the basis for Trump's ban on immigrants from certain terroristic countries which has been upheld by the courts it may lend credence to his moves but is not necvvesary. See the info above for every detail of why he can do this.

From: TD
01-Nov-18
By the very act/crime committed by being here illegally you have willfully CIRCUMVENTED the jurisdiction of the country. Your actions have placed you outside it.

The enforcement of laws, that you can be caught breaking the law and jailed has nothing to do with being in its jurisdiction.

From: Fivers
01-Nov-18
"Were that true, then the government wouldn’t be able to arrest them."

Arresting them is just better than killing them for the illegal invasion.

From: NvaGvUp
01-Nov-18
"This is another dog whistle to his white supremacist base"

If you EVER call me white supremacist to my face, you will regret it until the day you die.

From: Yendor
02-Nov-18
It is legal, and will be supported by the Supreme Court. It isn't just hispanics. There is a huge train of Asian women that the family pays huge amounts of dollars, to bring pregnant women to cities all over. In the Seattle area there are several houses (nice, Big) where they stay, and then have their babies. In the past it has then brought in up to 9 family members into the country as anchor babies. They were paying up to $50,000 per women to come to the US

From: slade
02-Nov-18

From: Annony Mouse
04-Nov-18
Compare the migration of invaders to someone who should absolutely receive asylum...

Asia Bibi, Christian Woman Acquitted Of Blasphemy, Desperate For Asylum Amid Violent Protests Against Her

If they can get to her before she can get out, they will kill her. And now, they just agreed to stop her from getting out.

Via Fox News:

The Christian woman in Pakistan who was on death row for nearly a decade before being acquitted by the country’s top court last week is now seeking asylum elsewhere, after widespread violent protests throughout the country.

Asia Bibi was convicted in 2010 after she allegedly contaminated a water jug — an offense viewed as blasphemy in the Muslim country.

Pakistan’s top court acquitted the 47-year-old on Wednesday and ordered her release in a move that infuriated the country’s hard-line Islamists, who have held nationwide protests demanding her execution.

Bibi’s husband, Ashiq Masih, released a video in Punjabi on Saturday asking the U.K. to grant his family asylum amid fears for their safety, Sky News reported.

“I am requesting the prime minister of the UK help us and as far as possible grant us freedom,” he said in a message directly to British Prime Minister Theresa May.

Masih also called for asylum from President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the clip, according to Sky News. France and Spain have offered Bibi asylum, but her path out of the country may have grown more complicated.

After three days of nationwide protests demanding her execution, the Islamists ended the violent clashes after the government agreed to impose a travel ban on Bibi and to allow her case to be reviewed.

Keep reading…

10-Nov-18

Spike Bull 's Link
"If Trump Ended Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order, He’d Be Enforcing Existing Law

Ed Feulner / @EdFeulner / November 09, 2018 / 2 Comments

President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he prepares to depart the South Lawn of the White House. (Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom)

COMMENTARY BY

Ed Feulner@EdFeulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research.

President Donald Trump’s critics have found something else to rend their garments over: his determination to end so-called “birthright citizenship.” Why, they thunder, it’s unconstitutional. And even if it could be changed, it can’t be by executive order.

They’re wrong on both counts.

That probably comes as a surprise to many Americans, including some who consider themselves Trump supporters. Haven’t we all been told for years that if you’re born here, you’re automatically a U.S. citizen? It’s all right there in the 14th Amendment. No matter who your parents are or what their status is, you’re an American. Simple as that.

Or is it? Consider the actual wording: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Seems pretty cut and dry, but check out that crucial clause: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s easy to mumble over it, but we shouldn’t. The Senate included it there for a reason when it passed the amendment in 1868: to make it clear that not everyone born here is automatically a citizen.

Being born here is only half the equation. You also must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The original proposed wording of the amendment did not include that phrase. It was inserted specifically to make it clear that the law did not, in fact, confer citizenship on everyone born here.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction and a strong supporter of the Citizenship Clause, noted that Congress intended to exclude “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” Supreme Court cases decided in the years soon after the amendment’s passage confirm this view.

Moreover, says constitutional scholar Edward Erler: “It is hard to conclude that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens illegally present when they explicitly denied that boon to Native Americans legally present but subject to a foreign jurisdiction.”

Notes Hillsdale College’s Matthew Spalding: “Few developed nations practice the rule of jus soli, or ‘right of the soil.’ More common is jus sanguinis, ‘right of blood,’ by which a child’s citizenship is determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.”

In short, it was wise of Congress to limit the scope of the amendment. And those who misinterpret it are wrong. Trump should be commended for trying to bring current understanding back in line with the original intent of the framers.

That leaves us with the question of whether he would be right to set this issue straight via an executive order. Some people who agree with him on birthright citizenship, such as National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, believe that he shouldn’t. They argue that it should be done by the same body that issued the amendment in the first place: Congress.

In other words, this is a job for Congress, the branch of government that creates our laws, not the executive, which enforces them.

According to McCarthy, a president cannot “unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law.”

Granted, but as constitutional scholar Hans von Spakovsky points out, “that assumes the ‘understanding’ is the correct one. If that understanding actually violates the plain text and intent of the law, the president as the chief law-enforcement officer can, and indeed has an obligation, to direct the federal government to begin applying and enforcing it correctly.”

To put it another way, the president here would not be attempting to make a new law, but to enforce the correct view of an existing law.

Sure, his order would be immediately challenged. Perhaps we’d even wind up with Congress clarifying the original intent of the law.

All the more reason to do it. Fairness demands that we get this issue settled—and soon."

From: bad karma
10-Nov-18
"This is another dog whistle to his white supremacist base"

My youngest son was murdered by a group of white supremacists. I don't have to worry about you having the cojones to say anything to my face or anyone else's, but if you did, you would not fare well.

  • Sitka Gear