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

[airplanemechanic]

If Obama can enact DACA with an executive order Trump is well within his power to end birthright citizenship with one.

 

[Wayne Adams]

You have the correct interpretation - born here = citizen

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

This is the a priori assumption that would be argued in the courts. We’ve already seen a case of legal immigrants who had a kid in the US, went back to China, and had that birthright citizenship argued all the way to the supreme Supreme Court. Not at all outside of realm to have birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants argued in front of the Supreme Court, that’s actually an easier case to make. This has been the point of the debate for some time now. We all are aware of the a priori assumption, stop pointing to it, it is a no shit statement.

The point has been litigated. If you're born here, you are a citizen:

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

3 Things You Should Know About Birthright Citizenship

Do you read your own articles? The first is about the practicality of the anchor baby as a strategy to stay in the US. The second just proves my point of the murkiness in jurisdiction, and gives its own take on the Wong Kim ark case, and fails to mention “oh, btw, Arks parents were in the country LEGALLY, which was the reason why it was determined that they fell under jurisdiction.

The problem you're having is in establishing what is relevant history and relevant rulings contrasted with dicta. Dicta is not even persuasive authority.

Here are the relevant quotes from the first article:

"But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea."
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant."

Here is the relevant quote from the second link:

"To be clear, it means that current jurisprudence indicates the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are given citizenship by the 14th Amendment."

I'm not sure what you think was proven, but the bottom line is the bottom line on this subject. If someone were born here, they are a citizen. If someone is not under the jurisdiction of the United States, they are not subject to being deported. Diplomats and foreign forces here at the behest of the government would constitute people here, but not under the jurisdiction of the law.

Nothing has been proven, that’s how it’s been practiced. That practice is coming under question with different circumstances than in the Ark case. This absolutely can be brought to the Supreme Court, because figuring out how to constitutionally apply the law with different circumstances (as in the Ark case) is exactly what the Supreme Court does. I read both your articles, I wasn’t confused by them. To say the Supreme Court cannot review this is flat out wrong, and wishful thinking mixed with some confirmation bias. The question to be answered yet is do illegal immigrants fall under US jurisdiction. I think there is a fairly strong case to be made that they do not.

There is nothing to keep the SCOTUS from revisiting this issue. It's still going to come down to practicality AND you are not anywhere in the ballpark when it comes to understanding the precedents OR the inherent problems even if you could win.

Since I am an opponent of the 14th Amendment to begin with, you are showing a lack of critical thinking skills. I'm the only person on this thread that is free from bias confirmation since NEITHER argument sways me. I do find it dangerous that the conservatives want to be ruled by un-elected dictators (legislation by the bench and ruled by Executive fiat.) The liberals hate the whites so much that they would destroy this Republic just out of spite. The conservatives would sell their soul to Satan himself if he just promised to keep those from south of the border from coming here. That alone is why you need a fresh perspective.

 

[Wayne Adams]

As a conservative I think a chance for the Supreme Court to revisit the 14th amendment is long overdue. It has been operating under the guise of "settled law" solely because some lower court schmuck said it did not appear to exclude people who were the children of non-citizens. In fact, he wrote in dictum that it did not specify either way.

I believe the Supreme Court justices we have now are honest and fair enough to rule what they believe the original framers intended for the amendment. In fact, I feel it is clear enough that even the old Supreme Court would have ruled against anchor babies. The thing is this - it takes an "outside the swamp" thinker like Trump to realize the obvious - that this amendment needs to be defined more clearly.

It doesn't matter how you get there, whether it referred from a lower court lawsuit by some liberal crank or a Presidential Executive Order. The important thing is that it gets done.

Herein lies the difference between a conservative and a constitutionalist. You've made this a learning moment. Thank You. Let me give you an analogy:

The Right to keep and bear Arms was litigated in many state courts with the net result being that even highest Court in this country ruled:

"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States."

...In addition the Justices held that the Second Amendment restricts only the powers of the national government, and that it does not restrict private citizens from denying other citizens the right to keep and bear arms, or any other right in the Bill of Rights. The Justices held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists, and that it is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating "Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence."

In 2008, the SCOTUS did what you are advocating and came up with this:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Did you see what they did there? They REVERSED the meaning of Rights as if the SCOTUS grants us Rights. Well so much for your Rights that were, as the earlier courts ruled "above the law." So, no longer having inherent and natural Rights, you have government given rights. Again, George Washington warned against this practice:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (George Washington in his Farewell Address)

What you suggest is legislation from the bench. Barring that, you will settle for rule be Executive Fiat. Both views are detrimental to our Republic and the Constitution. You don't even seem bothered by the indisputable fact that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified in the first place. BTW, did you catch that part where what you advocate is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed?

 

[basquebromance]

if an American couple is vacationing in Mongolia and they create a child, that child is an American citizen. strange how that works

 

[Daryl Hunt]

As a conservative I think a chance for the Supreme Court to revisit the 14th amendment is long overdue. It has been operating under the guise of "settled law" solely because some lower court schmuck said it did not appear to exclude people who were the children of non-citizens. In fact, he wrote in dictum that it did not specify either way.

I believe the Supreme Court justices we have now are honest and fair enough to rule what they believe the original framers intended for the amendment. In fact, I feel it is clear enough that even the old Supreme Court would have ruled against anchor babies. The thing is this - it takes an "outside the swamp" thinker like Trump to realize the obvious - that this amendment needs to be defined more clearly.

It doesn't matter how you get there, whether it referred from a lower court lawsuit by some liberal crank or a Presidential Executive Order. The important thing is that it gets done.

First of all, I agree that we need to update the 14th amendment to keep it current. It was written during a time when there wasn't much of an economic difference between the western rural states and the southern border Southern Countries. In fact, many areas were changing entire Governments from time to time during that time period for those areas and it really didn't make much of a difference to the common person. So no real incentives were given to move north to become US Citizens. At least, no real economic reasons. I use the same argument when the 2nd amendment is brought up.

Now for the bad part. This decision has not a damned thing to do with conservatism. If anything, it's the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism is opposite of change and changing the 14th is change. Calling anyone not wishing this "Change" a Socialist or a Communist is just stupid. If anything, they are the Conservative. They are closer to the original ideal that the nation was founded on. Actually, at one time, the method of just moving to the US was acceptable and the "Anchor Babies" was a way to gain more population that the US badly needed. But in time, that became a really bad idea. It was never written down in law one way or the other. Sometime in the 20th century, that practice became a really bad idea hence the Ellis Island method of immigration that became the law of the land. Sometime in the 1950s, the economics disparity changed between the southern parts of the US and the Northern Parts of the Southern Latin Countries also changed and the Border became a problem for the first time. And it continued to get worse. The 14th Amendment was never updated to reflect the modern needs.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

if an American couple is vacationing in Mongolia and they create a child, that child is an American citizen. strange how that works

If an American Couple is visiting France and the Mother gives birth to a child while there, the French holds that that that child is a French Citizen and can be Drafted to the French Armed Services. This is why, even today, that a Diplomats Child that is born there will be shipped out at age 17 and never return to France as he will be drafted into the French Military on his return or tried for avoiding Military Service. But the US will accept him as a US Citizen. A good example of a foreign born American Citizen would be Senator McCain who was a full born able to run for President. I know he has nothing to do with France but the rules for overseas born by US Citizen Parents are cut and dried and the child can be a full blown natural citizen. Of course, they also have the option to take the citizenship of the country they were born instead if they wish at age 18.

 

[sakinago]

This is the a priori assumption that would be argued in the courts. We’ve already seen a case of legal immigrants who had a kid in the US, went back to China, and had that birthright citizenship argued all the way to the supreme Supreme Court. Not at all outside of realm to have birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants argued in front of the Supreme Court, that’s actually an easier case to make. This has been the point of the debate for some time now. We all are aware of the a priori assumption, stop pointing to it, it is a no shit statement.

The point has been litigated. If you're born here, you are a citizen:

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

3 Things You Should Know About Birthright Citizenship

Do you read your own articles? The first is about the practicality of the anchor baby as a strategy to stay in the US. The second just proves my point of the murkiness in jurisdiction, and gives its own take on the Wong Kim ark case, and fails to mention “oh, btw, Arks parents were in the country LEGALLY, which was the reason why it was determined that they fell under jurisdiction.

The problem you're having is in establishing what is relevant history and relevant rulings contrasted with dicta. Dicta is not even persuasive authority.

Here are the relevant quotes from the first article:

"But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea."
For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant."

Here is the relevant quote from the second link:

"To be clear, it means that current jurisprudence indicates the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants are given citizenship by the 14th Amendment."

I'm not sure what you think was proven, but the bottom line is the bottom line on this subject. If someone were born here, they are a citizen. If someone is not under the jurisdiction of the United States, they are not subject to being deported. Diplomats and foreign forces here at the behest of the government would constitute people here, but not under the jurisdiction of the law.

Nothing has been proven, that’s how it’s been practiced. That practice is coming under question with different circumstances than in the Ark case. This absolutely can be brought to the Supreme Court, because figuring out how to constitutionally apply the law with different circumstances (as in the Ark case) is exactly what the Supreme Court does. I read both your articles, I wasn’t confused by them. To say the Supreme Court cannot review this is flat out wrong, and wishful thinking mixed with some confirmation bias. The question to be answered yet is do illegal immigrants fall under US jurisdiction. I think there is a fairly strong case to be made that they do not.

There is nothing to keep the SCOTUS from revisiting this issue. It's still going to come down to practicality AND you are not anywhere in the ballpark when it comes to understanding the precedents OR the inherent problems even if you could win.

Since I am an opponent of the 14th Amendment to begin with, you are showing a lack of critical thinking skills. I'm the only person on this thread that is free from bias confirmation since NEITHER argument sways me. I do find it dangerous that the conservatives want to be ruled by un-elected dictators (legislation by the bench and ruled by Executive fiat.) The liberals hate the whites so much that they would destroy this Republic just out of spite. The conservatives would sell their soul to Satan himself if he just promised to keep those from south of the border from coming here. That alone is why you need a fresh perspective.

How on earth does the ark case apply here? Lay that out for me because apparently I’m missing something.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/—-/ Guess What Sparky: Birthright Citizenship Is Not Actually in the Constitution - NYTimes.com

 

[tinydancer]

if an American couple is vacationing in Mongolia and they create a child, that child is an American citizen. strange how that works

when one star isn't enough.......

 

[CowboyTed]

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

You are so proud of the Pussy Grabber, aren't you?

I'm proud of him for sending leftist assholes like you into hysterics.

Now why don't you address the topic instead of your usual flaming and nonsense?

The 14th was never intended to be used to give illegal's spawn citizenship.

Great, you are proud that he is dividing America... Please put that on your bumper sticker...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

You are so proud of the Pussy Grabber, aren't you?

I'm proud of him for sending leftist assholes like you into hysterics.

Now why don't you address the topic instead of your usual flaming and nonsense?

The 14th was never intended to be used to give illegal's spawn citizenship.

Great, you are proud that he is dividing America... Please put that on your bumper sticker...

You never uttered a peep while your jackass Ear's divided with his racist BS. GFY

 

[tinydancer]

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

You are so proud of the Pussy Grabber, aren't you?

I'm proud of him for sending leftist assholes like you into hysterics.

Now why don't you address the topic instead of your usual flaming and nonsense?

The 14th was never intended to be used to give illegal's spawn citizenship.

Great, you are proud that he is dividing America... Please put that on your bumper sticker...

Some funny. Claiming conservatives are dividing America. I'm a classical liberal aka a conservative these days. You on the left mock and deride any one who even slightly doesn't fall in with your troops.

Fuck you.

 

[tinydancer]

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

You are so proud of the Pussy Grabber, aren't you?

I'm proud of him for sending leftist assholes like you into hysterics.

Now why don't you address the topic instead of your usual flaming and nonsense?

The 14th was never intended to be used to give illegal's spawn citizenship.

Great, you are proud that he is dividing America... Please put that on your bumper sticker...

You never uttered a peep while your jackass Ear's divided with his racist BS. GFY

Incited a mother fucker to kill 5 policeman in just one night. Injured 9 count them 9 others. I am not letting this go.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

You are so proud of the Pussy Grabber, aren't you?

I'm proud of him for sending leftist assholes like you into hysterics.

Now why don't you address the topic instead of your usual flaming and nonsense?

The 14th was never intended to be used to give illegal's spawn citizenship.

Great, you are proud that he is dividing America... Please put that on your bumper sticker...

You never uttered a peep while your jackass Ear's divided with his racist BS. GFY

Incited a mother fucker to kill 5 policeman in just one night. Injured 9 count them 9 others. I am not letting this go.

The left's hypocrisy is mind boggling

 

[tinydancer]

You are so proud of the Pussy Grabber, aren't you?

I'm proud of him for sending leftist assholes like you into hysterics.

Now why don't you address the topic instead of your usual flaming and nonsense?

The 14th was never intended to be used to give illegal's spawn citizenship.

Great, you are proud that he is dividing America... Please put that on your bumper sticker...

You never uttered a peep while your jackass Ear's divided with his racist BS. GFY

Incited a mother fucker to kill 5 policeman in just one night. Injured 9 count them 9 others. I am not letting this go.

The left's hypocrisy is mind boggling

Sigh. Put the mushroom cloud over my head. I cannot believe what we are dealing with now. I just want to make it thru the mid terms. I have a plan. As long as we hold the Senate.

Trust me. We will rock.

 

[Wayne Adams]

if an American couple is vacationing in Mongolia and they create a child, that child is an American citizen. strange how that works

Do you want to live in Mongolia?

 

[Wayne Adams]

As a conservative I think a chance for the Supreme Court to revisit the 14th amendment is long overdue. It has been operating under the guise of "settled law" solely because some lower court schmuck said it did not appear to exclude people who were the children of non-citizens. In fact, he wrote in dictum that it did not specify either way.

I believe the Supreme Court justices we have now are honest and fair enough to rule what they believe the original framers intended for the amendment. In fact, I feel it is clear enough that even the old Supreme Court would have ruled against anchor babies. The thing is this - it takes an "outside the swamp" thinker like Trump to realize the obvious - that this amendment needs to be defined more clearly.

It doesn't matter how you get there, whether it referred from a lower court lawsuit by some liberal crank or a Presidential Executive Order. The important thing is that it gets done.

First of all, I agree that we need to update the 14th amendment to keep it current. It was written during a time when there wasn't much of an economic difference between the western rural states and the southern border Southern Countries. In fact, many areas were changing entire Governments from time to time during that time period for those areas and it really didn't make much of a difference to the common person. So no real incentives were given to move north to become US Citizens. At least, no real economic reasons. I use the same argument when the 2nd amendment is brought up.

Now for the bad part. This decision has not a damned thing to do with conservatism. If anything, it's the opposite of conservatism. Conservatism is opposite of change and changing the 14th is change. Calling anyone not wishing this "Change" a Socialist or a Communist is just stupid. If anything, they are the Conservative. They are closer to the original ideal that the nation was founded on. Actually, at one time, the method of just moving to the US was acceptable and the "Anchor Babies" was a way to gain more population that the US badly needed. But in time, that became a really bad idea. It was never written down in law one way or the other. Sometime in the 20th century, that practice became a really bad idea hence the Ellis Island method of immigration that became the law of the land. Sometime in the 1950s, the economics disparity changed between the southern parts of the US and the Northern Parts of the Southern Latin Countries also changed and the Border became a problem for the first time. And it continued to get worse. The 14th Amendment was never updated to reflect the modern needs.

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified as a way to revoke your God given unalienable Rights and replace them with government privileges. It created two classes of citizens: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Future SCOTUS decisions tried to put all of us under the purview of the 14th Amendment. What that means is that if you accept the 14th Amendment, you have to accept the fact that you have forfeited the Rights our forefathers guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Markle]

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.

Payback is heck, isn't it?

Don't forget, it was Harry Reid who brashly changed the rule from needing 60 votes for a Federal Judge to a simple majority, 51.

I do indeed thank you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Payback is heck, isn't it?

No, its childish and STILL anti constitutional

 

[Markle]

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified as a way to revoke your God given unalienable Rights and replace them with government privileges. It created two classes of citizens: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Future SCOTUS decisions tried to put all of us under the purview of the 14th Amendment. What that means is that if you accept the 14th Amendment, you have to accept the fact that you have forfeited the Rights our forefathers guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of how controversial is the 14th Amendment. It is part of the Constitution and no amount of discussion or whining today will change anything.