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

[Billy000]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

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

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

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

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

LOL

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

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

Oh the Trump SCOTUS hub? That’s rich. Your dumbass is apparently too stupid to understand the concept of checks and balances. The executive branch must be independent of the Judicial. This demonstrates how blind your pathetic loyalty is to Trump.

 

[Markle]

Payback is heck, isn't it?

No, its childish and STILL anti constitutional

Simply playing by the rules you put in place. What seems to be the problem?

 

[Wayne Adams]

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.

Pure cow dung. You may as well accept the proposition that nothing can be done then. The 14th Amendment reduced you to a serf, so clank your chains and be happy.

The 14th Amendment could go away as fast as Trump's policy of separating undocumented families did.

 

[Markle]

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.

Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama stated up front that the DACA Executive order he signed would not stand up in the courts. It has so far. So if we can't get it through legislation, why not an executive order?

 

[Markle]

The 14th Amendment could go away as fast as Trump's policy of separating undocumented families did.

Malarkey

Clinton and Obama both separated families. You just hate it because you have nothing else.

What happens to their kids when a single mom, or dad, are sent to prison?

I presume you have accepted the fact that the photos of kids in chain link cages were taken in 2014. How was it okay then?

 

[Markle]

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

I presume you are speaking of failed former President Barack Hussein Obama who did more to divide this country than any president in modern history.

 

[Billy000]

The 14th Amendment could go away as fast as Trump's policy of separating undocumented families did.

Malarkey

Clinton and Obama both separated families. You just hate it because you have nothing else.

What happens to their kids when a single mom, or dad, are sent to prison?

I presume you have accepted the fact that the photos of kids in chain link cages were taken in 2014. How was it okay then?

The only time those kids were separated from their parents was if the parents committed a separate crime. Obama and Clinton didn’t even come up with that policy. Learn some facts for once, you dummy.

 

[Wayne Adams]

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.

Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama stated up front that the DACA Executive order he signed would not stand up in the courts. It has so far. So if we can't get it through legislation, why not an executive order?

Did you read the quote I did from George Washington? I can repeat it again:

"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 Speech

I don't want to destroy a free nation by allowing the president or the courts do the job we elect legislators to do. If you want a dictatorship so bad, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Wayne Adams]

The 14th Amendment could go away as fast as Trump's policy of separating undocumented families did.

Malarkey

Clinton and Obama both separated families. You just hate it because you have nothing else.

What happens to their kids when a single mom, or dad, are sent to prison?

I presume you have accepted the fact that the photos of kids in chain link cages were taken in 2014. How was it okay then?

You have me confused with someone that is on the left or right; Democrat or Republican. The optics matter more than the facts for either side. And, as you are about to learn, the Dems have the cards to make the Republicans look bad. NEITHER side wants to deal with the real solution.

 

[Wayne Adams]

The 14th Amendment could go away as fast as Trump's policy of separating undocumented families did.

Malarkey

Clinton and Obama both separated families. You just hate it because you have nothing else.

What happens to their kids when a single mom, or dad, are sent to prison?

I presume you have accepted the fact that the photos of kids in chain link cages were taken in 2014. How was it okay then?

The only time those kids were separated from their parents was if the parents committed a separate crime. Obama and Clinton didn’t even come up with that policy. Learn some facts for once, you dummy.

I'm sure calling me names makes you feel good, but I already know that. I'm not on the Republican's side and damn well not on the Democrat's side. So you need to learn some facts.

The first fact is, I don't give a rip who did what to whom (I think my grammar might suck there.) NEITHER side has the right solution. Right now, the optics are is that Trump is a divisive hate monger. The media wants Trump to fail and nobody is paying attention to who did what when.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, under the plans you accept and he so - called solutions the other side takes, it is pre-planned to fail. You simply cannot see the root of the problem.

 

[Wayne Adams]

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

I presume you are speaking of failed former President Barack Hussein Obama who did more to divide this country than any president in modern history.

While that's true, nobody was climbing Clinton's ass. The media - you know, people like Jonathan Carl want Trump hung by his balls. The blame game ain't gonna win it for you.

Don't you think it's time to consider a point that hasn't been discussed?

 

[Wayne Adams]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

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

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

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

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

LOL

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

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

Having a baby in the U.S. does NOT preclude the fact that their undocumented parents are subject to deportation - same as any other foreigner that don't have papers.

 

[BluesLegend]

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

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

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

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

LOL

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

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

Oh the Trump SCOTUS hub? That’s rich. Your dumbass is apparently too stupid to understand the concept of checks and balances. The executive branch must be independent of the Judicial. This demonstrates how blind your pathetic loyalty is to Trump.

^^^ hence the left's meltdown over Kavanaugh. Where was your high and mighty attitude when Obama was putting radical liberals on the court hmmm.

 

[sparky]

Baron's got that dubious look>>>>

 

[Faun]

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.​

But that was a quote from the appeals court, not the supreme court.

Here’s the ruling from the appellate court...

720 F2d 529 Rios-Pineda v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service | OpenJurist

The quote I posted was from the Supreme Court.

I see what it says now, and yes, it is as you say.

However, it still needs to be argued and defined. The framers of the 14th have written that the amendment was not to be used in the capacity in which it has been used.

If not, then, yes, all children of illegal aliens must be considered citizens.

It’s being used as designed...

”Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” ~ Jacob Howard​

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the only ones excluded are the foreigners, aliens, Howard described as from families of ambassadors and ministers (diplomats).

 

[jillian]

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.

you can't undo a constitutional amendment via executive order.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Baron's got that dubious look>>>>

What adolescent boy doesn't?

 

[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.

you can't undo a constitutional amendment via executive order.

Correct. But what you can do is challenge it's interpretation by EO.

 

[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.

you can't undo a constitutional amendment via executive order.

Correct. But what you can do is challenge it's interpretation by EO.

Trump could sign an EO and the only thing that could be challenged is the EO's constitutionality.

I keep crunching the numbers and you cannot change the current meaning of the 14th Amendment with the make-up of the SCOTUS.

 

[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.

you can't undo a constitutional amendment via executive order.

Correct. But what you can do is challenge it's interpretation by EO.

Trump could sign an EO and the only thing that could be challenged is the EO's constitutionality.

I keep crunching the numbers and you cannot change the current meaning of the 14th Amendment with the make-up of the SCOTUS.

Correct, his EO can and will be challenged. But that would bring up the issue whether or not the 14th was intended for (or to protect) anchor babies.

The challenge would have to be that such an EO violates the 14th amendment. Whether the court decides it does or does not violate the 14th amendment, either way the issue is settled.