If you support Trump ending Birthright Citizenship via executive order you're a hypocrite.

[Mr.Blonde]

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.

Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The only other option you are leaving the US government is yo start killing pregnant aliens then.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

We do not have to amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship.
We just have to interpret the constitution correctly.
Birthright citizenship was never meant for illegal aliens.
It's an illegal immigration magnet.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.”

-Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan), the author of the 14th amendment May 30, 1866

The only exemption are ”foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.” i.e., foreign diplomats who are not subject to U.S. law.

You don't think that's a problem? Or do you think Birth Tourism is good for the country?

I don’t see that is either good or bad. What negative do you see?

It is a good thing to hand out citizenship to people into the country who may not be loyal to the country?

Why would a U.S. citizen not be loyal? Not speaking of people intentionally traitorous.

Such people would likely have dual citizenship and be loyal to both.

They have no connection to the US. They do however have connections to another country.

 

[BluesLegend]

We do not have to amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship.
We just have to interpret the constitution correctly.
Birthright citizenship was never meant for illegal aliens.
It's an illegal immigration magnet.

The Trump SCOTUS will put a stop to it.

 

[Toro]

Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.

If the United States doesn’t have jurisdiction over an individual, then that individual can commit a crime in the US with immunity.

No reasonable person would seriously argue that simply because someone has allegiance to a foreign country, they could murder an American citizen and get away with it.

No, I never said that. Subject to the Jurisdiction Therein meant that they have no allegiance with another country period.

So in my scenario, let's say China wanted to sneak in a dirty bomb using this Chinese citizen of theirs who is (by our standards) an American citizen. Much easier to do being an American citizen than being a visitor of some kind. Or you can even use any country from the middle-east for that matter.

Allegiance has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

If any person of any citizenship commits a crime in the US, unless they have sovereign immunity, the US has the power to prosecute that person. That’s what jurisdiction means. Allegiance is irrelevant.

Birthright Citizenship | Federation for American Immigration Reform

Again, that link does not refute that a person in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the United States, regardless of citizenship.

All it does is say that “some scholars argue” allegiance of a child of illegal aliens without postulating why. It does not argue that a foreign national who commits a crime in the US isn’t under the jurisdiction of US law.

It has nothing to do with law and breaking the law. So do tell: what do you think the clause meant? If they wanted for anybody to drift over and have American children regardless of the citizen status of the parents, why include that clause?

What it meant was that in order to have an American baby, the parents had to be Americans themselves. That's the argument the Supreme Court will eventually hear and decide on.

Jurisdiction means the governing entity can adjudicate and enforce the laws within its defined boundaries. If you break American law in the US, then the US government has jurisdiction to enforce and adjudicate the law that was broken. It’s irrelevant whether or not the person who broke the law has allegiance to the US.

Those who argue the legal status is relevant to the 14th Amendment argue that the intent was to apply to those who had allegiance solely to the US. But that’s not what the law says. And Wok Kim Ark dealt with non-citizens with legal status. Legal status of non-citizens does not imply allegiance. Therefore, because Wok Kim Ark further clarified the 14th Amendment, it implicitly deemed allegiance as irrelevant to birthright citizenship.

 

[jc456]

I agree

 

[Faun]

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.

Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

 

[jc456]

We do not have to amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship.
We just have to interpret the constitution correctly.
Birthright citizenship was never meant for illegal aliens.
It's an illegal immigration magnet.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

"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 14thAmendment by stating:

"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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

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."

 

[Wayne Adams]

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

The truth always comes out, you're a weak ass fake Conservative!!

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).

This isn't the act of a King, it's action we never get from elected officials, quit being afraid of the truth and start expecting our elected officials to do just that, act!

Yes, the truth DOES come out. Immigrants are being deported every day when they have American born children. Their babies do NOT anchor them here.

Sure they are, but the current immigration laws DO provide a path to their parents and relatives for US Citizenship...

The path existed before they had children here. Having children here keeps them from NOT being able to become citizens sooner than if they had got papers before entering.

 

[Wayne Adams]

An EO ending it would be challenged in court I don't know if it would stand but when you have assholes in Congress on both sides who refuse to deal with the issue the options are pretty limited. If we were to end birthright citizenship we sure wouldn't be the first. Countries that have ended universal birthright citizenship include the United Kingdom, which ended the practice in 1983, Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland, which ended the practice through a national referendum in 2004, New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic, which ended the practice in January 2010.

I, personally, would not mind ending birthright citizenship as per the 14th Amendment. But, in our case, it is the amendment itself that is the issue. Being illegally ratified, it is not worth the paper it's printed on.

So, instead of pursuing the correct avenue, some prefer to let SCOTUS decide the matter, hoping that the Justices Trump got in will rubber stamp his unconstitutional solutions. You're in for a rude awakening.

 

[jc456]

An EO ending it would be challenged in court I don't know if it would stand but when you have assholes in Congress on both sides who refuse to deal with the issue the options are pretty limited. If we were to end birthright citizenship we sure wouldn't be the first. Countries that have ended universal birthright citizenship include the United Kingdom, which ended the practice in 1983, Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland, which ended the practice through a national referendum in 2004, New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic, which ended the practice in January 2010.

I, personally, would not mind ending birthright citizenship as per the 14th Amendment. But, in our case, it is the amendment itself that is the issue. Being illegally ratified, it is not worth the paper it's printed on.

So, instead of pursuing the correct avenue, some prefer to let SCOTUS decide the matter, hoping that the Justices Trump got in will rubber stamp his unconstitutional solutions. You're in for a rude awakening.

so you are against the black slaves being made citizens? you racist.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Presidents are SUPPOSED TO BE near kings. This is entirely within his right. It will do what he intended it to do. It will be challenged and end up before the Supreme Court. Guess which side will win?

Idiot bullshit fuck you

Too bad they don't have negative emojis here. Guess you'll have to settle for the guy laughing at you.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Too bad they don't have negative emojis here. Guess you'll have to settle for the guy laughing at you.

He had such a great, well thought out comeback!

Trump IS doing the right thing. He's NOT doing away with that flawed Amendment but forcing clarification.
That's a good thing. And Trumps opinion is the one that will prevail.

 

[BluesLegend]

Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

We have nothing to lose pushing this issue to the SCOTUS. Dem's have everything to lose. Their scheme of canceling out American votes with millions of amnesty illegal votes and their anchor baby votes very likely will be destroyed by the SCOTUS.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Presidents are SUPPOSED TO BE near kings. This is entirely within his right. It will do what he intended it to do. It will be challenged and end up before the Supreme Court. Guess which side will win?

Idiot bullshit fuck you

Too bad they don't have negative emojis here. Guess you'll have to settle for the guy laughing at you.

Blow me noob

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

We have nothing to lose pushing this issue to the SCOTUS. Dem's have everything to lose. Their scheme of canceling out American votes with millions of amnesty illegal votes and their anchor baby votes very likely will be destroyed by the SCOTUS.

Yep. That's why dems and people like Paul Ryan hate it so much.

 

[BluesLegend]

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

We have nothing to lose pushing this issue to the SCOTUS. Dem's have everything to lose. Their scheme of canceling out American votes with millions of amnesty illegal votes and their anchor baby votes very likely will be destroyed by the SCOTUS.

Yep. That's why dems and people like Paul Ryan hate it so much.

Bingo, thank you for reminding everyone there are a bunch of traitor RINO's who also ally with illegals. Ryan, Jeb Bush, John Kasich all traitors. When illegals are RAPING and KILLING thousands of Americans its unconscionable that these traitors side with the illegals.

 

[Wayne Adams]

An EO ending it would be challenged in court I don't know if it would stand but when you have assholes in Congress on both sides who refuse to deal with the issue the options are pretty limited. If we were to end birthright citizenship we sure wouldn't be the first. Countries that have ended universal birthright citizenship include the United Kingdom, which ended the practice in 1983, Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland, which ended the practice through a national referendum in 2004, New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic, which ended the practice in January 2010.

I, personally, would not mind ending birthright citizenship as per the 14th Amendment. But, in our case, it is the amendment itself that is the issue. Being illegally ratified, it is not worth the paper it's printed on.

So, instead of pursuing the correct avenue, some prefer to let SCOTUS decide the matter, hoping that the Justices Trump got in will rubber stamp his unconstitutional solutions. You're in for a rude awakening.

so you are against the black slaves being made citizens? you racist.

North Korea = 99.8 percent Korean
Zimbabwe = 99.7 percent Black
Japan = 98.5 percent Japanese
China = 91.59 percent Han Chinese

All those countries avoid the ethnic, racial and cultural B.S. we go through; nobody criticizes them; they have their own country. You buy all kinds of products from North Korea, Japan and China. Fact is, if I took all the products out of your home that were made in those three countries, your place would be bare.

The United States is held to one standard; the rest of the world to another. Yet a poster is calling me racist. Somehow, the posterity of the founders are not entitled to a Right of self determination; no Right to their own homeland; no Right to decide what is in their best interests.

So, the left wants to make much ado about slavery and blame the whites. Blacks claim they were the first Egyptians. They held biblical Israel in slavery for 430 years. The Whites ended slavery! And yet we have a poster here that calls me a racist.

There is a subtle and deliberate attempt by non-White, non-Christians and their proselytes to eradicate White people from the face of the earth. One poster here calls me a racist.

The reality is, within six months of the Constitution being ratified, the founders (through Congress) passed the first Naturalization Law. It reads (in part):

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States,"

naturalization laws 1790-1795

That, of course, would (by today's standards) make the founders racist. Since America's Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were written by Whites, they should be abolished and the mixed multitude should be allowed to run the country. Of course, if I agreed with that, those promoting subtle genocide would be pacified and no longer call me a racist.

Let's not sugar coat this. The liberals cannot stand the thought that the White people built a nation based upon a culture that promoted their race and the common bond of Christian principles. While they find it displeasing, offensive, and objectionable, they have NO problem with the many other nations that are run the same way. You're just not supposed to have a country dominated by the White people. That is the reason only Whites are referred to as racists.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Presidents are SUPPOSED TO BE near kings. This is entirely within his right. It will do what he intended it to do. It will be challenged and end up before the Supreme Court. Guess which side will win?

Idiot bullshit fuck you

Too bad they don't have negative emojis here. Guess you'll have to settle for the guy laughing at you.

Blow me noob

Blow you? Are all you libs gay?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Presidents are SUPPOSED TO BE near kings. This is entirely within his right. It will do what he intended it to do. It will be challenged and end up before the Supreme Court. Guess which side will win?

Idiot bullshit fuck you

Too bad they don't have negative emojis here. Guess you'll have to settle for the guy laughing at you.

Blow me noob

so you're gay too?