Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think the law allows the deportation of a child/person born in the US, but the law does allow the deportation of the parents or parent, if they are here illegally.

Deport the parents and let them decide whether or not they want to take their child with them.

The child however would still remain a US citizen.

 

[amrchaos]

Question

If he 14 th was never ratified, how did it become the 14 th amendment?

Time for some google research!!

 

[amrchaos]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

 

[edthecynic]

ANY citizen from ANY country that comes here and does NOT renounce their citizenship from their country of origin may NOT become a U.S. citizen.

Except if he is a Republican like Cruz who held dual citizenship, US and Canada, while he was a US senator until he decided to run for President. Many Israelis hold US and Israeli citizenship.

 

[bendog]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship,

what IS he claiming?

That people that are here ILLEGALLY and have a baby cannot hide under the protection of the 14th amendment.

They must be here legally

So despite the fact that the 14th Amendment makes no such specific stipulation,

the anti-birthright people want the Court to 'read into' the Amendment such language, in a sort of judicial activist action of legislating from the bench?

okay...

I don't think it's activist. the 14th doesn't specify either way as to being here legally or non-legally. The legislative history can actually support either position, as senators at the time actually had differing opinions. The Wiki article on birthright citizenship has some links.

Fed Dist Courts and Courts of appeal have ruled for birthright citizenship for kids whose parents are not here legally. But, I think the only sup court case was Wong Kim Ark, which involved Chinese nationals who were LEGALLY here.

 

[Syriusly]

I cannot tell how this even more makes me want Trump to be the face of the Republican Party

Hey boy.....this country was founded for White people only. Read the 1790 Naturalization Act boy. Read it boy. Publish it boy. One more time......this country was founded for White people.

Sadly white idiots like you give European Americans a bad name.

You are an idiot, and a racist hater. You suck.

 

[Syriusly]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship,

what IS he claiming?

That people that are here ILLEGALLY and have a baby cannot hide under the protection of the 14th amendment.

They must be here legally

Yup. Its not the law and it never has been.

Nice little write up on it here.

Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart

This one is from Brietbart and I'm sure some will dismiss it but it is what it is.

Well, I agree with that, in that I think the supreme court could rule that only babies born here to people who LEGALLY are here, are citizens.

I think you're right and I wonder why everyone is saying the kids of illegals are us citizens. The story looks pretty straightforward to me.

Because the 14th Amendment very clearly says that they are.

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

 

[Syriusly]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship,

what IS he claiming?

That people that are here ILLEGALLY and have a baby cannot hide under the protection of the 14th amendment.

They must be here legally

Yup. Its not the law and it never has been.

Nice little write up on it here.

Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart

This one is from Brietbart and I'm sure some will dismiss it but it is what it is.

Well, I agree with that, in that I think the supreme court could rule that only babies born here to people who LEGALLY are here, are citizens.

Well the Supreme Court COULD rule anything- the Supreme Court could rule that the 13th Amendment really means that Slavery is still legal......

But COULD doesn't mean that the Supreme Court WILL.

If you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- what you want is a Constitutional Amendment changing the language so it doesn't say what it actually says about citizenship.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

 

[mudwhistle]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

And Democrats fought it's ratification tooth & nail.

 

[Rotagilla]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

 

[amrchaos]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

And Democrats fought it's ratification tooth & nail.

I did not ask which party fought for what. I asked why people think the 14th amendment was not ratified.

It is a straightforward question, why the deflection?

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes.......we aren't supposed to discuss immigration unless it's fending off attacks from the left.

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th Amendment isn't going to be 'repealed.'

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment will remain part of the Constitution and law of the land.

A president has no authority to 'repeal' an Amendment, eliminate a provision of an Amendment, or change the case law predicated on an Amendment – these facts serve to illustrate Trump's ignorance and idiocy, and the ignorance and idiocy of those who agree with him.

But they can request that the issue be revisited. The next president will likely be nominating 3-4 justices.

Abortion, Gay RIGHTS,. now the rights got the 14th to get rid of. Boy is this going to be fun!!! lol

Go back an read post #88, it was never the intent of the 14th to grant citizenship to foreigners, aliens or diplomats. The court took that one upon themselves like they so often do, ignoring original intent. The court can reverse it.

They can, but why would they?

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


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

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

 

[bendog]

I've not seen in any article I've read where Trump said the "14th Amendment is unconstitutional".

Now I know media loves, loves, loves to put out fabrications in their headlines because that's all many bother to read being a headline society.

This is done purposefully and repetitively. Especially in politics.

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship,

what IS he claiming?

That people that are here ILLEGALLY and have a baby cannot hide under the protection of the 14th amendment.

They must be here legally

Yup. Its not the law and it never has been.

Nice little write up on it here.

Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart

This one is from Brietbart and I'm sure some will dismiss it but it is what it is.

Well, I agree with that, in that I think the supreme court could rule that only babies born here to people who LEGALLY are here, are citizens.

Well the Supreme Court COULD rule anything- the Supreme Court could rule that the 13th Amendment really means that Slavery is still legal......

But COULD doesn't mean that the Supreme Court WILL.

If you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- what you want is a Constitutional Amendment changing the language so it doesn't say what it actually says about citizenship.

At the time the 14th was ratified, there was thought that native americans weren't included. It WAS about former slaves. We didn't have limits on immigration from other countries. In short, the legal status of parents being here was never an issue .... in 1867. The supreme court never addressed this issue. All I'm saying is that one cannot just dismiss arguments requiring legal status, because there is a logical support for them.

Some racists buy into this, but imo neither Claudette nor Cereal Killer fit that bill.

Personally, were it just up to me, I'd grant some legal status to all here, and keep citizenship the way it is. And, I'd also make it extremely unprofitable to hire anyone without legal status. I'd also make every employer who has a worker with a visa require the worker verify his visa yearly or be fired.

 

[g5000]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

In the 1890s, Chinese foreigners in the US could not attain citizenship. There were bigoted laws on the books preventing them from doing so.

When Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents from China, the nativists felt that Wong Kim Ark was not allowed to be a citizen since he was of the Chinese race.

Though the law forbade his parents from being citizens, they were still under US jurisdiction, which meant Wong Kim Ark had birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. So sayeth the Supreme Court in 1898.

Now we have modern day nativists who think the illegal status of the parents of a child born here means the child is not allowed to be a citizen.

They are wrong for exactly the same reasons as their bigoted political ancestors were in 1898. The parents of the children born in the US are under US jurisdiction. Therefore, their children have birthright citizenship.

 

[mudwhistle]

It was ratified in 1868 and was key to granting Blacks citizenship. Why do some of you say it was never ratified?

And Democrats fought it's ratification tooth & nail.

I did not ask which party fought for what. I asked why people think the 14th amendment was not ratified.

It is a straightforward question, why the deflection?

Just a reminder......for true historical perspective.

We all know that liberals like talking about issues as if it was in a vacuum and not take everything into account.

There's a word for that.

It's called "Denial"

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

"Judge" Perez was a Huey Long protégé on the take fixing elections and such and a corrupt bigoted segregationist in LA. His "thoughts" on the Constitutionality of Amendment XIV are, like the Sears catalog of the day, useful mostly only in the outhouse!

A bad choice of source upon which to base that con argument. It is so easily disproven by the weight of evidence over time.

He wasn't the only source..and despite your smears you can't deny what he said is true
That's why you resort to the standard lib fallback position of namecalling and insults....but don't address the issue...keep trying to distract.

I can say and did say what "Judge" Perez wrote is Bullshit! I can find all sorts of revisionist claptrap any time...it's a big world beyond the red clay of Georgia! There are a bunch of papers out in the great beyond declaring Amendment XVI is unconstitutional, too, but most folks are still paying their income tax! How about the flat earthers...ya gonna jump on board with that when it suits?

Your "Judge" Perez wrote in that "paper" of his that Georgia, for instance, had rejected Amendment XIV in Nov 1866, and Georgia had. But the good "Judge" and segregationist bigot failed to also note that Georgia had then ratified it on July 21, 1868 among other southern States doing the same.

If one is not a neoconservative, bigot upholding the precepts of the Traitors of the Southern Rebellion, that automatically makes one a "lib"? It's possible I was a voting Republican before you were born...but I don't know our age difference, and it's beside the point because I don't buzz around any political hive as a mindless functionary or drone upholding neo fascist principles!

georgia was ruled by provisional military governors sent by the fed gvmt to continue to punish the south and more importantly to make sure any laws they wanted passed were rammed through...like the 14th amendment...

From the perspective of a southern bigot begat by the traitors of the Southern Rebellion, I guess one of that sort could see it like that through their distorted lens.

 

[bendog]

But they can request that the issue be revisited. The next president will likely be nominating 3-4 justices.

Abortion, Gay RIGHTS,. now the rights got the 14th to get rid of. Boy is this going to be fun!!! lol

Go back an read post #88, it was never the intent of the 14th to grant citizenship to foreigners, aliens or diplomats. The court took that one upon themselves like they so often do, ignoring original intent. The court can reverse it.

They can, but why would they?

BTW can you cite a case where the supreme court has granted citizenship to the children of criminal aliens?

The Supreme Court doesn't 'grant' citizenship to anyone.

However the Supreme Court has recognized that a child born to illegal alien parents in the United States is a citizen because he/she was born in the United States.


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

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

I don't think citizenship was an issue. The Court merely assumed. And, I believe our statutory immigration laws specify birthright citizenship.

Frankly, I doubt the supreme court would want to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. But, it might be that a Roberts court would just defer to the legislature, which is what he did with Obamacare and criticized 5 other justices for not doing in the gay marriage case.

 

[Claudette]

OK, so if Trump is accepting the 14th is constitutional, given that it unequivocally protects birthright citizenship,

what IS he claiming?

That people that are here ILLEGALLY and have a baby cannot hide under the protection of the 14th amendment.

They must be here legally

Yup. Its not the law and it never has been.

Nice little write up on it here.

Constitution Doesn't Mandate Birthright Citizenship - Breitbart

This one is from Brietbart and I'm sure some will dismiss it but it is what it is.

Well, I agree with that, in that I think the supreme court could rule that only babies born here to people who LEGALLY are here, are citizens.

Well the Supreme Court COULD rule anything- the Supreme Court could rule that the 13th Amendment really means that Slavery is still legal......

But COULD doesn't mean that the Supreme Court WILL.

If you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- what you want is a Constitutional Amendment changing the language so it doesn't say what it actually says about citizenship.

At the time the 14th was ratified, there was thought that native americans weren't included. It WAS about former slaves. We didn't have limits on immigration from other countries. In short, the legal status of parents being here was never an issue .... in 1867. The supreme court never addressed this issue. All I'm saying is that one cannot just dismiss arguments requiring legal status, because there is a logical support for them.

Some racists buy into this, but imo neither Claudette nor Cereal Killer fit that bill.

Personally, were it just up to me, I'd grant some legal status to all here, and keep citizenship the way it is. And, I'd also make it extremely unprofitable to hire anyone without legal status. I'd also make every employer who has a worker with a visa require the worker verify his visa yearly or be fired.

Thanks and no I'm no racist. Just a taxpayer who's sick and tired of being hosed to pay for other peoples responsibilities.

As for the illegals being citizens??

I for one think that little deal needs to be looked at.

I doubt its legal and I doubt it ever has been. Interesting question that needs a look by someone who's an expert on the law.