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

[Dana7360]

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.

”What it meant was that in order to have an American baby, the parents had to be Americans themselves.”

LOLOL

According to your nonsense, Trump’s own son, Barron, isn’t a U.S. citizen because Melanie Trump wasn’t a U.S. citizen when he was born.

Are ya feeling stupid yet?

Neither would trump jr. Ivana Trump became a citizen of the United States after trump jr was born but before Ivanka and Eric were born.

 

[playtime]

no donny, you will not be king of america... it doesn't work that way....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

And why would the Supreme Court rule babies born of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens when they have said in the past that they are?

Because of the Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. That would not be included if it meant non-citizens could have American babies simply by having them in the country.

 

[Faun]

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.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

And why would the Supreme Court rule babies born of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens when they have said in the past that they are?

Actually they haven't. That article you posted didn't any ruling by the SC, only the court of appeals.

Of course there was a ruling. It was unanimous. The appellates filed a claim against the Attorney General to force him to reopen their immigration case, where the last standing was to deport them. They managed to get their case presented before the Supreme Court, who ruled 9-0, the Attorney General has the the power to deny a motion to reopen for discretionary reasons.

But in their ruling, they maintained the long standing accordance that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

 

[Kondor3]

...Indian tribes had sovereignty over reservations, which is why the court ruled that the US government didn’t have jurisdiction over Elk. Mexico has no sovereignty over any of the territory in the US, unlike Indian tribes in 1884. Hence, the US government has jurisdiction over all individuals in the United States, except those who have sovereign immunity recognized by the United States, ie foreign diplomats, including illegal aliens, meaning that the US government has jurisdiction over the children born to illegal aliens in the US. Therefore, under the 14th Amendment, the children of illegal aliens are US citizens.

Times (and existing interpretations of the Fourteenth) are changing.

The United States cannot compel Illegal Aliens to fulfill the responsibilities that it expects of its own citizens.

Consequently, it only has a very fragmentary and grossly imperfect jurisdiction over Illegal Aliens present upon United States soil.

Once SCOTUS undertakes that approach, coupled with references to documented Original Intent behind the Fourteenth...

Anchor Babies will be a thing of the past.

So much for future litters of your kin automatically obtaining citizenship and joining the Democrats, eh?

Americans have wised-up...

Fun-Time is over for you-and-yours...

 

[Faun]

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.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

And why would the Supreme Court rule babies born of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens when they have said in the past that they are?

Because of the Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. That would not be included if it meant non-citizens could have American babies simply by having them in the country.

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they weren’t, they’d be immune from the law like diplomats; who are in the only class excluded from the 14th Amendment.

 

[LeftofLeft]

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.

Trump is fucking with you...... it’s working.

 

[ThisIsMe]

We have to understand, the president is not trying to repeal an amendment with EO, that is not possible, and few would support it.

He is taking an action on the interpretation of the amendment, which is still sketchy, but it will force the SC to litigate the amendment and make a ruling on the meaning of the amendment.

Here's the full text of that Amendment.

Tell me which part is sketchy. It's very straight forward, exact and clear.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

The part that says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is the part they are going to define. It appears the meaning of that part is a bit muddy.

What's unclear about that?

If undocumented people weren't subject to the jurisdiction of our government and our laws then our immigration laws don't apply to them and they aren't here illegally.

You might want to tell the undocumented people who are here and serving time in our prisons for crimes they committed while here that the government has no jurisdiction on them and they can get out of prison because of it.

If you actually think that any judge on any one of our courts including our right wing controlled Supreme Court is going to buy into that you seriously need to rethink things.

I don't think its referring to jurisdiction of laws. I think its referring to jurisdiction of the boundaries of the country. Similar to how a sheriff works a certain county because he is subject to the jurisdiction of that county, but not the county next door.

The child is subject to the jurisdiction if the parents are citizens, unless the parents are foreign diplomats, in which case, the child is then not subject to the jurisdiction.

The thing is, if the parents are here illegally, you can't reward them by allowing them to have a child, and by proxy they being granted automatic citizenship. If that were the case, then anyone who could sneak themselves across the border could bypass all of our immigration and naturalization laws.

Also, what do you say to all of those people who have been working, and waiting for years to become citizens the correct way? They just get bypassed?

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

”What it meant was that in order to have an American baby, the parents had to be Americans themselves.”

LOLOL

According to your nonsense, Trump’s own son, Barron, isn’t a U.S. citizen because Melanie Trump wasn’t a U.S. citizen when he was born.

Are ya feeling stupid yet?

Neither would trump jr. Ivana Trump became a citizen of the United States after trump jr was born but before Ivanka and Eric were born.

But Donald was a citizen, so his children are citizens.

 

[impuretrash]

If being conservative means looking the other way while millions of mexicans invade the nation then count me out of your gay little club.

Trump's caravan bogeyman is a midterm red herring hoax to distract from real issues like healthcare.

How the FUCK are we going to have a functional socialist utopia when we keep letting in millions of lazy foreigners who leech off the system?

Funny. They built this country - after whitey stole it from Native Americans.

Natives existed here for thousands of years before the white man came along and accidentally exterminated them with smallpox. In all that time they never managed to invent the fucking wheel much less create a nation so I don't know what you're on about.

Look where Mexico City used to be. You don't call the Aztecs a Nation? Or the Mayans?

Neither developed the wheel but they did build some pretty nifty monuments I guess. But neither had a foothold in what is now the United States.

 

[Faun]

We have to understand, the president is not trying to repeal an amendment with EO, that is not possible, and few would support it.

He is taking an action on the interpretation of the amendment, which is still sketchy, but it will force the SC to litigate the amendment and make a ruling on the meaning of the amendment.

Here's the full text of that Amendment.

Tell me which part is sketchy. It's very straight forward, exact and clear.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

The part that says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is the part they are going to define. It appears the meaning of that part is a bit muddy.

What's unclear about that?

If undocumented people weren't subject to the jurisdiction of our government and our laws then our immigration laws don't apply to them and they aren't here illegally.

You might want to tell the undocumented people who are here and serving time in our prisons for crimes they committed while here that the government has no jurisdiction on them and they can get out of prison because of it.

If you actually think that any judge on any one of our courts including our right wing controlled Supreme Court is going to buy into that you seriously need to rethink things.

I don't think its referring to jurisdiction of laws. I think its referring to jurisdiction of the boundaries of the country. Similar to how a sheriff works a certain county because he is subject to the jurisdiction of that county, but not the county next door.

The child is subject to the jurisdiction if the parents are citizens, unless the parents are foreign diplomats, in which case, the child is then not subject to the jurisdiction.

The thing is, if the parents are here illegally, you can't reward them by allowing them to have a child, and by proxy they being granted automatic citizenship. If that were the case, then anyone who could sneak themselves across the border could bypass all of our immigration and naturalization laws.

Also, what do you say to all of those people who have been working, and waiting for years to become citizens the correct way? They just get bypassed?

Umm, using your analogy, a sheriff is the law.

And the parents are not rewarded with citizenship.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

And why would the Supreme Court rule babies born of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens when they have said in the past that they are?

Actually they haven't. That article you posted didn't any ruling by the SC, only the court of appeals.

Of course there was a ruling. It was unanimous. The appellates filed a claim against the Attorney General to force him to reopen their immigration case, where the last standing was to deport them. They managed to get their case presented before the Supreme Court, who ruled 9-0, the Attorney General has the the power to deny a motion to reopen for discretionary reasons.

But in their ruling, they maintained the long standing accordance that children born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

So, maybe I'm just not seeing it. I read the entire article twice and downloaded the pdf report and in all of that, I could only ever see where the case was brought to the court of appeals and the bureau of immigration appeals. I've not seen anything where it was argued in the supreme court, and haven't seen anything about the 9-0 decision of the supreme court.

Could you link the article of where it says the SC argued this case?

 

[ThisIsMe]

We have to understand, the president is not trying to repeal an amendment with EO, that is not possible, and few would support it.

He is taking an action on the interpretation of the amendment, which is still sketchy, but it will force the SC to litigate the amendment and make a ruling on the meaning of the amendment.

Here's the full text of that Amendment.

Tell me which part is sketchy. It's very straight forward, exact and clear.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

The part that says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is the part they are going to define. It appears the meaning of that part is a bit muddy.

What's unclear about that?

If undocumented people weren't subject to the jurisdiction of our government and our laws then our immigration laws don't apply to them and they aren't here illegally.

You might want to tell the undocumented people who are here and serving time in our prisons for crimes they committed while here that the government has no jurisdiction on them and they can get out of prison because of it.

If you actually think that any judge on any one of our courts including our right wing controlled Supreme Court is going to buy into that you seriously need to rethink things.

I don't think its referring to jurisdiction of laws. I think its referring to jurisdiction of the boundaries of the country. Similar to how a sheriff works a certain county because he is subject to the jurisdiction of that county, but not the county next door.

The child is subject to the jurisdiction if the parents are citizens, unless the parents are foreign diplomats, in which case, the child is then not subject to the jurisdiction.

The thing is, if the parents are here illegally, you can't reward them by allowing them to have a child, and by proxy they being granted automatic citizenship. If that were the case, then anyone who could sneak themselves across the border could bypass all of our immigration and naturalization laws.

Also, what do you say to all of those people who have been working, and waiting for years to become citizens the correct way? They just get bypassed?

Umm, using your analogy, a sheriff is the law.

And the parents are not rewarded with citizenship.

So, you concede that since the parents are not granted citizenship, then the child must be taken into social services and the parents be deported?

 

[007]

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.

Well... sorry gramps... but it's coming. The president has very expansive powers when it comes to immigration, and since the 14th amendment was written for the CHILDREN OF SLAVES, it appears the supreme court is going to have to REMIND people of that. It was NEVER meant for MASS MIGRATION of ILLEGAL ALIENS to gain a FOOTHOLD in America, PERIOD, and it WILL be UPHELD as such.

It's PAST time to END ANCHOR BABIES.

 

[deltex1]

Can't wait for Brett Kavanaugh to review this subject...soon I hope.

Here's some advice from Coulter...

October 31, 2018 - THE TRUE HISTORY OF MILLSTONE BABIES

 

[sakinago]

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.

Can you please link this supreme court case? I'd like to see where the SC has ruled on this. If this is the case, and the SC did actually already interpret that children born to illegals withing the borders of the United states, then this issue is settled and no need to go further with it.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

That’s not the whole case, and it operates with the a priori assumption that birthright citizenship applies as long in the US no matter what. The actual issue has not been hashed out by SCOTUS or any other court. This is what I said in my post. Not a case of birthright citizenship being hashed out, this was a case in which an illegal immigrant had a child in the US, they claimed it was extreme hardship to suspend deportation. BTW his request for suspension of deportation got DENIED. Again not a case involving birthright citizenship at all, it was a deportation case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

And why would the Supreme Court rule babies born of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens when they have said in the past that they are?

Because of the Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. That would not be included if it meant non-citizens could have American babies simply by having them in the country.

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If they weren’t, they’d be immune from the law like diplomats; who are in the only class excluded from the 14th Amendment.

What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country. If illegals are here and have a child, their home country has claims on that child. That child is still a citizen of their country.

John McCain was born overseas because his father was in the service. John was an automatic citizen because he was born to two US citizens. If something happened to his parents, he would have been shipped back to his home country--the United States.

 

[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.

None of those countries are melting pots like the U.S.

The issue becomes that the United States was not intended to become a melting pot. Consequently, in order to appease non-Whites, the entire system will have to be scrapped.

In order to scrap the system, you have to fully disenfranchise the posterity of the founders.

 

[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.

How and when did birthright citizenship for ILLEGALS begin? Was that by Constitutional Amendment?

The 14th Amendment started birthright citizenship and the United States Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean if you're born here, you're a citizen regardless of the immigration status of your parents.

Yeah, that's not what it says. Maybe read it first

In and of itself, the Amendment is wide open to interpretation. It is irrefutable as to how SCOTUS ruled on it. Furthermore, SCOTUS unilaterally proclaimed themselves to be the final arbiter of what the law is.

 

[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.

How and when did birthright citizenship for ILLEGALS begin? Was that by Constitutional Amendment?

The 14th Amendment started birthright citizenship and the United States Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean if you're born here, you're a citizen regardless of the immigration status of your parents.

Yeah, that's not what it says. Maybe read it first

None of these dumb ass liberals have even read the 14th. They act like the 14th is cast in stone, yet have no problem 'interpreting' the 2nd amendment. Liberals really are the lowest form of life on earth.

I think I have stated once on this thread that the most liberal organization in the United States is the American Bar Association (the ABA.) The ABA is used by the government as the primary source to approve potential SCOTUS nominees and as far as I know, all licensed attorneys are ABA approved. The ABA, other than the Communist Party USA, is the most liberal organization in the United States.

SCOTUS is made up of Catholics and Jews. Regardless of whether they consider themselves liberal or conservative, SCOTUS Justices have their own sense of morality and that dictates how they vote. SCOTUS will not overturn the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment. You have to understand the importance that Jews and Catholics have toward families and not breaking them up.

In the grand scheme of things, it is not whether or not the 14th is carved in stone; the reality is knowing how the legal questions play out in the Court. Trump has no recourse when SCOTUS rejects his arguments. It does not matter what my personal political ideology might be. What matters is how the issue plays out. SCOTUS plays the role of God and, being pragmatic, they cannot reverse the current interpretation.

I hate to belabor the point, but if SCOTUS reinterpreted the 14th Amendment, millions of American families would be separated (you shouldn't need a boulder to fall on your head to see how that would go.) Thousands of U.S. Service personnel would be recalled and discharged. Thousands of U.S. businesses would close. I'm sorry. Regardless of which side you stand on, this is a no brainer.