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

[OKTexas]

This is some funny shit right here.

Looking in the mirror again?

Likely In his pants

You’re looking in his pants?

Come on, you wouldn’t be curious to see the worlds’ smallest pecker?

On one of the biggest dicks in the world, no thanks. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.

No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO

.

 

[Billy000]

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

If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.

No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO

.

Lol okay you go ahead and see how this turns out for president dumbass because he will fail like always.

 

[OKTexas]

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

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

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

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

Wrong.

There is no such thing as an ‘anchor baby’:

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrCxGGhcdpbDDQAFW8PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1541071393/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.forbes.com%2fsites%2fandyjsemotiuk%2f2014%2f09%2f22%2fimmigration-the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby%2f/RK=2/RS=Pia2WT2CPG_unBEqHWttd4QziL0-

The notion is ignorant, bigoted nonsense.

Yeah those 20+MM illegals in this country today are a myth...

So the term is accurate and you try to turn it into a ignorant notion or bigotry?

When do we deal with the real issue, can you even comprehend that notion?

When you can provide a real reason we should ignore the current laws, then maybe you'll have a point...

You're right, 20 million is a myth, it's probably double and maybe triple that. There were 275,000 children born to illegals last year, in the 80's it was about 30,000.

.

More like about 400 million illegal aliens here.

WOW, you really are that stupid, aren't you? LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

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

If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.

No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO

.

Lol okay you go ahead and see how this turns out for president dumbass because he will fail like always.

Oh right, like on the travel ban. LMAO But either way it will be decided, I'm all for that. I just think you're afraid your side will lose with 5 originalist on the court. But honestly I have my doubts about Roberts.

.

 

[Norman]

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.

So basically, you just love taking it in the butt?

Every time a democrat wins, he will have no trouble bringing in more anti-Americans in droves. But when Trump wins, oh my principles!

Never let the enemy use your higher standards and principles against you. We have America to take back...

 

[Linkiloo]

He's right. Having a baby in the US shouldn't automatically mean citizenship. Time for a change.

 

[sakinago]

you have this much vitriol when Obama said he couldn’t do anything on immigration

Yes

Not a reply to you

 

[Toro]

Not 100% certain it is the case that birthright citizenship applies to those who entered illegally. The closest thing I’ve seen is the Wong Kim Ark case. In that case, Arks parents were here LEGALLY, but still not naturalized citizens. This case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, with a 6-2 split decision, and this was a debate involving parents who were permitted entry, went back to China, tried to come back and were denied.

So the question is, does this same principle apply to parents who enter the country without that countries permission?

Many believe that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant no other allegiance to another country. In the case of illegals, both they and the child do have an allegiance to their home country.

If an illegal couple has a kid here, moves back to China when the child is six months old and grows up there, that child is considered a Chinese citizen no matter where he was born. If war ever broke out between our countries, that child (now an adult) can infiltrate our country to do harm, and there is nothing we can do about it because the now adult has allegiance to the Chinese government.

Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

Allegiance has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

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

Birthright Citizenship | Federation for American Immigration Reform

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

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Many believe that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant no other allegiance to another country. In the case of illegals, both they and the child do have an allegiance to their home country.

If an illegal couple has a kid here, moves back to China when the child is six months old and grows up there, that child is considered a Chinese citizen no matter where he was born. If war ever broke out between our countries, that child (now an adult) can infiltrate our country to do harm, and there is nothing we can do about it because the now adult has allegiance to the Chinese government.

Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

Allegiance has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

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

Birthright Citizenship | Federation for American Immigration Reform

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

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

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

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

 

[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.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Who says it doesn't apply? You? Your Constitutional Law degree came from where?

LOL you obviously have not read the 14th.

You haven’t either, or the constitution for that matter. President dumbass can’t overturn an amendment with EO. Only another amendment can.

Hes not trying to overturn an amendment

 

[sakinago]

Many believe that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant no other allegiance to another country. In the case of illegals, both they and the child do have an allegiance to their home country.

If an illegal couple has a kid here, moves back to China when the child is six months old and grows up there, that child is considered a Chinese citizen no matter where he was born. If war ever broke out between our countries, that child (now an adult) can infiltrate our country to do harm, and there is nothing we can do about it because the now adult has allegiance to the Chinese government.

Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.

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

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

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

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

Allegiance has nothing to do with jurisdiction.

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

Birthright Citizenship | Federation for American Immigration Reform

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

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

Under jurisdiction does not mean loyalty to another country. If you look at the 14th amendment, they specifically excluded birthright citizenship to those who are born to foreign diplomats, because they are not under US jurisdiction, not subject to their laws. They also excluded “Indians not taxed” because the Indian nations operated with their own laws and made treaties with the US. In the Wong Kim Ark case, the parents were in the country legally and were subject to US law Vs Chinese law this was the justification for granting ark US citizenship

 

[caddo kid]

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.

That is just a crock of shit: YOU, and all of your right wing jerk offs are just chompin at the bit to have Trump sign some dumbass EO to stop anchor babies.

FIRST OFF: Trump has already proven himself to be COMPLETELY IGNORANT concerning how Amendments are instituted, or changed. It is the function of The US Congress to initiate Amendments, or to alter Amendments.

Trump has demonstrated to the WORLD that he didn't even attend his 5th grade CIVICS CLASS. He was out fvcking Kathy up her poop shoot when he FAILED that class.

Yeah but go ahead and act all righteous about Trump's IGNORANCE.

POTUS Dumb Ass.

Did you have this much vitriol when Obama said he couldn’t do anything on immigration, that congress had too...and then went ahead and did it through EO anyway?

Why do I bother with people like you? You’re just a sad person that tries to make up for their lack of character and honesty by being the loudest to shout at what your in group is telling you is the enemy. You’re not capable of an honest conversation, certainly not yet. The OP is, which is why the OP addressed his own side to not be hypocritical. By you’re ridiculous reaction to this, it’s clear the OP held up a mirror showing you your own flaws, and you decided to punch that mirror. Stop being pathetic or exit this conversation.

Please inform us what O did with an EO AFA immigration.

Did he alter any Amendments?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

This is some funny shit right here.

Expand on why you find it funny, please.

 

[easyt65]

Actually the Thread title should read:

If you said NOTHING when Obama admittedly violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress to affect existing immigration law by imposing his own Dreamer Act on the country but are freaking out now over Trump starting up a national discission by TALKING about ending the 'anchor baby's issue then you are a partisan hypocrite.

 

[easyt65]

Please inform us what O did with an EO AFA immigration.

He ADMITTEDLY violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress to impose his own EDICT.

Are you THAT stupid as to NOT know this was a violation of Separation of Powers ... Or are you just that PARTISAN?

 

[caddo kid]

Please inform us what O did with an EO AFA immigration.

He ADMITTEDLY violated the Constitution by bypassing Congress to impose his own EDICT.

Are you THAT stupid as to NOT know this was a violation of Separation of Powers ... Or are you just that PARTISAN?

The question was: Please inform us what O did with an EO AFA immigration.

 

[Faun]

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

If you actually understood the constitution, you would know that only a new amendment could undo the 14th.

No amendment was needed to undo Dread Scott, and no amendment is needed to get a proper interpretation of the 14th. It's amazing how much of the things you know, just aren't true. LMAO

.

The 14th Amendment put an end to Dred Scott laws regarding citizenship.

 

[Faun]

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

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

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

Wrong.

There is no such thing as an ‘anchor baby’:

https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrCxGGhcdpbDDQAFW8PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1541071393/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.forbes.com%2fsites%2fandyjsemotiuk%2f2014%2f09%2f22%2fimmigration-the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby%2f/RK=2/RS=Pia2WT2CPG_unBEqHWttd4QziL0-

The notion is ignorant, bigoted nonsense.

Yeah those 20+MM illegals in this country today are a myth...

So the term is accurate and you try to turn it into a ignorant notion or bigotry?

When do we deal with the real issue, can you even comprehend that notion?

When you can provide a real reason we should ignore the current laws, then maybe you'll have a point...

You're right, 20 million is a myth, it's probably double and maybe triple that. There were 275,000 children born to illegals last year, in the 80's it was about 30,000.

.

More like about 400 million illegal aliens here.

WOW, you really are that stupid, aren't you? LMAO

.

Oh? 400 million is too low?