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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

So who said such a decision would be retroactive? But even if that was such a case, we could put them at the front of the line ahead of new applicants for citizenry. After all, the US is the only country in the developed world that allows a million foreigners to become American citizens every year. Make them citizens first and let the others wait.

 

[Faun]

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?

INS v. Rios-Pineda: The Authority of the Attorney General to Deny Motions to Reopen | myattorneyusa

 

[Faun]

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?

No, the parents can take their baby with them when they get deported.

 

[Faun]

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.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

 

[Faun]

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.

”What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. If it did, then even babies born to foreign legal residents wouldn’t be U.S. citizens and not even you brain-dead righties are arguing that.

Even worse for your ridiculous assertion, if it were true, that would mean 4 of trump’s 5 kids are not U.S. citizens and are here illegally since their mothers had allegiance to another country when they were born.

So when do you demand his kids get deported?

 

[ThisIsMe]

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?

INS v. Rios-Pineda: The Authority of the Attorney General to Deny Motions to Reopen | myattorneyusa

So, I went have time to read the article in full until later, from skimming through it, it appears that the SC only made a decision on whether or not to allow BIA to reopen the case. It doesn't appear they argued anything in regards to the child being a citizen or the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

From what I read, the SC did not argue this. It only argued whether or not the BIA had the ability to reopen the case

 

[Moonglow]

Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

 

[Flash]

No more Catch and Release. God bless Trump. He has the courage to protect the US!

Much better having a President that protects our borders instead of allowing the illegal assholes to flood in.

Much better than having a President that lies about health care, raises taxes, increases poverty, put our children in debt, kiss Castro's ass and send the Iranian Mullahs barrels of cash, isn't it?

 

[Moonglow]

Trump is just setting up the legal scuffle on this. Part of Trump’s Comprehensive Illegal Immigration Reform Act

The 14th wasn't written to allow children of illegals to become US citizens, it's time to follow the Constitution as it is written and stop "interpreting" it to suit agendas.

I doubt an EO will hold up in the matter but it would open up the can of worms to allow it to be addressed by the courts. Gorusch and Kavanaugh are looking like sweet picks in that regard ...another reason Trump winning was so important

The left's plan to gift amnesty to illegals under Hillary, free college, free fill in the blank, they had it within their grasp then Trump won and destroyed their world.

Just like Reagan, what's the diff?

 

[Moonglow]

No more Catch and Release. God bless Trump. He has the courage to protect the US!

Much better having a President that protects our borders instead of allowing the illegal assholes to flood in.

Much better than having a President that lies about health care, raises taxes, increases poverty, put our children in debt, kiss Castro's ass and send the Iranian Mullahs barrels of cash, isn't it?

No difference...

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

”What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. If it did, then even babies born to foreign legal residents wouldn’t be U.S. citizens and not even you brain-dead righties are arguing that.

Even worse for your ridiculous assertion, if it were true, that would mean 4 of trump’s 5 kids are not U.S. citizens and are here illegally since their mothers had allegiance to another country when they were born.

So when do you demand his kids get deported?

When you say "legal foreign residents", you mean people who have gained citizenship? If so, then their allegiance is no longer legally tied to another country.

Trump is and was a citizen when his children were born.

 

[Faun]

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?

INS v. Rios-Pineda: The Authority of the Attorney General to Deny Motions to Reopen | myattorneyusa

So, I went have time to read the article in full until later, from skimming through it, it appears that the SC only made a decision on whether or not to allow BIA to reopen the case. It doesn't appear they argued anything in regards to the child being a citizen or the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I didn’t say the parents argued their child is a U.S. citizen. I said the Supreme Court recognized that in their ruling — which you didn’t even think existed.

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.​

 

[Faun]

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.

”What it means is that there can't be an allegiance to another country.”

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. If it did, then even babies born to foreign legal residents wouldn’t be U.S. citizens and not even you brain-dead righties are arguing that.

Even worse for your ridiculous assertion, if it were true, that would mean 4 of trump’s 5 kids are not U.S. citizens and are here illegally since their mothers had allegiance to another country when they were born.

So when do you demand his kids get deported?

When you say "legal foreign residents", you mean people who have gained citizenship? If so, then their allegiance is no longer legally tied to another country.

Trump is and was a citizen when his children were born.

No, I mean foreigners who are not citizens. How did you not get that from my post when I pointed out that 2 of trump’s 3 wives were not U.S. citizens when their children were born?

And so what if trump was a citizen? That other poster asserted they would be born with allegiance to another country because their mother had allegiance to another country.

So when do trump’s kids get deported?

 

[Wayne Adams]

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.

So who said such a decision would be retroactive? But even if that was such a case, we could put them at the front of the line ahead of new applicants for citizenry. After all, the US is the only country in the developed world that allows a million foreigners to become American citizens every year. Make them citizens first and let the others wait.

The right is contending that the Constitution is being misinterpreted. If so, the allegation applies to all that are currently here.

You're not talking about passing a new law; you are talking about interpreting the law as is. IF the 14th Amendment was not interpreted to your liking, if it is reinterpreted, it applies to all those benefiting off citizenship while not being citizens.

There seems to be a disconnect with those wanting to crack down on immigration. Let me clear up a myth for you. While there are people waiting to get into the United States, there is no first come, first served line. Some offices process applications faster than others; some individual agents process applications faster than others. In order for what you say to happen, the legislature would have to create a first come first served law.

That clearly is not what this is about. This thread is about Trump ending birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution. He can't do it and you've uncovered one reason why it would be impractical for him to do so. He'd still need the legislature to pass laws to make it work. It would be more straightforward and simple to merely have the 14th Amendment declared null and void since it was not legally ratified as per the law. There would be some problems - an adjustment period, but that would be the fastest and simplest solution.

 

[Wayne Adams]

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.

So? The highest court in the land acknowledged the 14th Amendment designates babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens.

You have the correct interpretation - born here = citizen

Can the Child of an Undocumented Immigrant Become a U.S. Citizen?

 

[Wayne Adams]

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?

No, the parents can take their baby with them when they get deported.

While the parents "can" take their baby with them, they are not obligated to. They could leave them here with other relatives and put them on all manner of welfare.

You cannot force U.S. citizens out of this country and what the right proposes here is short sighted. Let us presume you could deport American children:

A few years go by and those children are now of age. They show up at the border with their birth certificate, socialist surveillance number, national ID card, etc. You cannot deny them entry. These people start showing up by the millions.

They no longer speak English; they don't have an education; they will lack job skills; they won't have a family support system here. What's your plan then? It appears to me that the instant gratification solutions being proposed are short sighted. You need a permanent solution. Personally, I'm with that growing mindset that believes we should allow people to come here that can fend for themselves, but not require that they follow any path to citizenship. The million new citizens per year are almost at the point of being able to outvote Americans and make this conversation irrelevant.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship you fools are going to lose.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship you fools are going to lose.

The state to watch to make that determination is in Georgia. There, the democrat, Stacey Abrams, wants undocumented immigrants to have the privilege of voting. Oprah Winfrey is campaigning on her behalf as is Robert DeNiro. Abrams is also anti-gun. The polls are saying it is a dead heat. Somebody out there is for the undocumented taking over. See how far left is willing to go with this:

Dem Donor Network Wants Reparations On Agenda By 2022

Kemp, Abrams have opposing views on undocumented immigrants, HOPE Scholarship

Stacey Abrams: Her Official Anti-Gun Record (Read It) – Georgia Gun Owners

The mayor of Atlanta no longer keeps undocumented foreigners in jail. If Abrams wins, Georgia becomes a sanctuary state. Watch the election. Arizona may not be far behind. The polls say you're wrong, but if Kemp grabs like 53 percent of the vote and wins in spite of the millions Hollywood is pouring into Georgia, I'd be glad to buy you lunch, shake your hand, and admit that you were more in touch with the masses than I am. Personally, I'm scared, but am hopeful the media is FOS and Kemp gets at least 53 percent of the vote.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.

The word "all" is in it, good luck trying to clarify a clear word.

No rational person believes in illegal anchor baby citizenship you fools are going to lose.

The state to watch to make that determination is in Georgia. There, the democrat, Stacey Abrams, wants undocumented immigrants to have the privilege of voting. Oprah Winfrey is campaigning on her behalf as is Robert DeNiro. Abrams is also anti-gun. The polls are saying it is a dead heat. Somebody out there is for the undocumented taking over. See how far left is willing to go with this:

Dem Donor Network Wants Reparations On Agenda By 2022

Kemp, Abrams have opposing views on undocumented immigrants, HOPE Scholarship

Stacey Abrams: Her Official Anti-Gun Record (Read It) – Georgia Gun Owners

The mayor of Atlanta no longer keeps undocumented foreigners in jail. If Abrams wins, Georgia becomes a sanctuary state. Watch the election. Arizona may not be far behind. The polls say you're wrong, but if Kemp grabs like 53 percent of the vote and wins in spite of the millions Hollywood is pouring into Georgia, I'd be glad to buy you lunch, shake your hand, and admit that you were more in touch with the masses than I am. Personally, I'm scared, but am hopeful the media is FOS and Kemp gets at least 53 percent of the vote.

I play long ball, I know that eventually the country will become furious over illegals and these politicians will shit themselves.