Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

Why does anyone think that if you sneak across the border and squirt out a baby, that child SHOULD be an American citizen?

What practicality does it serve?

The 14th AMMENDEMENT was passed during Reconstruction for the purpose of allowing the children of slaves to be citizens. People who were KIDNAPPED AND TAKEN to America.

Not people sneaking across the border.
 
Last edited:
Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

President Trump said in a newly released interview he plans to sign an executive order ending so-called "birthright citizenship" for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil -- a move that would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and trigger an almost-certain legal battle.

Birthright citizenship allows any baby born on U.S. soil to automatically be a U.S. citizen.

The policy, which stems from a disputed but long-recognized interpretation of the 14th Amendment, has given rise to what Trump considers abuse of the immigration system. Trump told "Axios on HBO" that the U.S. is the only country in the world "where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DICTATOR Trump desires to completely bypass the responsibilities of The US Congress.




100 years too late



So, you want America to be a dictatorship in which the lawful responsibilities of The US Congress are bypassed with the stroke of a pen by a dictator?

Fvck, you really DO HATE The Constitution.


no

I'm tired of BOTH sides misusing it for their own purposes.

If the wife and I go to Spain, England, Germany, etc, and have a child.


The child is AMERICAN, NOT Spanish, NOT English, NOT German.

If someone comes here and has a child, it should NOT make them American, unless one of the parents is American.



So, you want America to become a DICTATORSHIP in which Congress passes it responsibilities to POTUS, to repeal Constitutional Amendments, which is the function of the US Congress?

Yes, or No will do.


Dictatorship?

NO

and only in the small minds of partisan assholes could Trump, by writing this EO, be considered a dictator.
 
I hope and pray he does.... :eusa_pray:

And then every Republican on the ballot has to run on that? Fantastic.

There’s been to much emphasis placed on the powers of the executive and judicial branch of government since Trump was elected. A little constitutional 101 is in order here.

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 1;

All Legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress, that shall consist of a Senate an a House of Representatives...

Pay close attention to the word ALL.

It doesn’t say SOME or SHARED

It says ALL

The Founders did not or ever intend either the President or the Courts to have ANY legislative powers.

The further this blob gets away from the Constitution the more people will see this pervert is far beyond his depth. I pray he does file the EO.

What I think will happen is that this will be you guys like the recording‘s in the oval office, the Innuendo about Mueller’s business deal, the threat they put Hillary in jail, the threat to have China branded a Curren$y manipulator, The various threats to sue numerous people which he never followed up on, and all of the lies he told his moronic followers.

This is just another episode of cowardice and trumps book length manuscript He has offered on the subject
 
14th Amendment was written for the benefit of post Civil War slaves and is outdated.

No other country has birthright citizenship to non citizen parents. We shouldn't either.

think it’s outdated?? Ok go ahead and follow the REPEAL process Constitution provides for.
 
It’s a calculated move to open the debate.The 14th ammendment is for slaves.
`
Perhaps you should read up on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. It can be changed only by congressionnal amendment, a national constitutional convention or an amendment that can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in three-fourths of the states. An executive order doesn't cut it.

Nothing more than an opinion. This has never been argued in the federal courts to this point.

What part of

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.​

Is unclear?

Hopefully martybegan just clarified it for you.
Use your head and think back to the document headline / title.... “We The People” not “We The People Of Mexico”
See, this pesky document you hate was written for Americans only...this document was never intended to be used for foreigners to benefit, it is not an international document.

He did not clarify anything.

A tourist who commits a crime in this country is subject to American law because the United States has jurisdiction over the individual while in the country.

If the US government does not have jurisdiction over a non-citizen or non-legal resident in the country, then that person can commit crimes while in the country with impunity.

That’s obviously not the case.
 
It’s a calculated move to open the debate.The 14th ammendment is for slaves.
`
Perhaps you should read up on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. It can be changed only by congressionnal amendment, a national constitutional convention or an amendment that can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in three-fourths of the states. An executive order doesn't cut it.

Nothing more than an opinion. This has never been argued in the federal courts to this point.

What part of

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.​

Is unclear?

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.

Has that ever adequately been explained via federal courts?

If a person who is a citizen of another country, and thus is subject to the jurisdiction of said country, has a child, might that countries laws make that child a citizen, and thus subject to another jurisdiction?

People in the United States are subject to the laws of the United States, even if they aren’t citizens. This is well established in law.

Heck, even non-citizens who aren’t in the United States can be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if they do business with people or organizations in the United States.

Laws yes, but what is the definition of jurisdiction?

And while they may need to comply with our laws to do business, they are not under the jurisdiction of the US unless their country agrees to it, usually via extradition treaties.
 
Why does anything think that if you sneak across the border and squirt out a baby, that child SHOULD be an American citizen?

What practicality does it serve?

The 14th AMMENDEMENT was passed during Reconstruction for the purpose of allowing the children of slaves to be citizens. People who were KIDNAPPED AND TAKEN to America.

Not people sneaking across the border.

Then amend the Constitution.

Until then, anyone born in this country is an American citizen.
 
Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Anchor babies started with an EO, they can end with an EO, too.

Then get Congress to pass a real law. We're going to have to force these politicians to do something after the midterms.
Anchor babies started with an EO? What EO is that?
 
Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

President Trump said in a newly released interview he plans to sign an executive order ending so-called "birthright citizenship" for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil -- a move that would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and trigger an almost-certain legal battle.

Birthright citizenship allows any baby born on U.S. soil to automatically be a U.S. citizen.

The policy, which stems from a disputed but long-recognized interpretation of the 14th Amendment, has given rise to what Trump considers abuse of the immigration system. Trump told "Axios on HBO" that the U.S. is the only country in the world "where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DICTATOR Trump desires to completely bypass the responsibilities of The US Congress.




100 years too late



So, you want America to be a dictatorship in which the lawful responsibilities of The US Congress are bypassed with the stroke of a pen by a dictator?

Fvck, you really DO HATE The Constitution.


no

I'm tired of BOTH sides misusing it for their own purposes.

If the wife and I go to Spain, England, Germany, etc, and have a child.


The child is AMERICAN, NOT Spanish, NOT English, NOT German.

If someone comes here and has a child, it should NOT make them American, unless one of the parents is American.



So, you want America to become a DICTATORSHIP in which Congress passes it responsibilities to POTUS, to repeal Constitutional Amendments, which is the function of the US Congress?

Yes, or No will do.


Dictatorship?

NO

and only in the small minds of partisan assholes could Trump, by writing this EO, be considered a dictator.


It's propaganda to fire up the bigots before the mid-terms. It's working, too. Look at you nutjobs.
 
It’s a calculated move to open the debate.The 14th ammendment is for slaves.
`
Perhaps you should read up on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. It can be changed only by congressionnal amendment, a national constitutional convention or an amendment that can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in three-fourths of the states. An executive order doesn't cut it.

Nothing more than an opinion. This has never been argued in the federal courts to this point.

What part of

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.​

Is unclear?

Hopefully martybegan just clarified it for you.
Use your head and think back to the document headline / title.... “We The People” not “We The People Of Mexico”
See, this pesky document you hate was written for Americans only...this document was never intended to be used for foreigners to benefit, it is not an international document.

He did not clarify anything.

A tourist who commits a crime in this country is subject to American law because the United States has jurisdiction over the individual while in the country.

If the US government does not have jurisdiction over a non-citizen or non-legal resident in the country, then that person can commit crimes while in the country with impunity.

That’s obviously not the case.

Those people willingly submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States, and follow certain laws pertaining to it.

And those interactions are mediated by treaties and international law.
 
Why does anything think that if you sneak across the border and squirt out a baby, that child SHOULD be an American citizen?

What practicality does it serve?

The 14th AMMENDEMENT was passed during Reconstruction for the purpose of allowing the children of slaves to be citizens. People who were KIDNAPPED AND TAKEN to America.

Not people sneaking across the border.

Then amend the Constitution.

Until then, anyone born in this country is an American citizen.

That hasn't been established via the Courts yet.

This is going to start that process.
 
`
Perhaps you should read up on the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship. It can be changed only by congressionnal amendment, a national constitutional convention or an amendment that can be ratified by a favorable vote in three-fourths of all state legislatures or by such a vote in specially called ratifying conventions called in three-fourths of the states. An executive order doesn't cut it.

Nothing more than an opinion. This has never been argued in the federal courts to this point.

What part of

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.​

Is unclear?

The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.

Has that ever adequately been explained via federal courts?

If a person who is a citizen of another country, and thus is subject to the jurisdiction of said country, has a child, might that countries laws make that child a citizen, and thus subject to another jurisdiction?

People in the United States are subject to the laws of the United States, even if they aren’t citizens. This is well established in law.

Heck, even non-citizens who aren’t in the United States can be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if they do business with people or organizations in the United States.

Laws yes, but what is the definition of jurisdiction?

And while they may need to comply with our laws to do business, they are not under the jurisdiction of the US unless their country agrees to it, usually via extradition treaties.

Jurisdiction is the ability of an entity to enforce laws and administer justice.

The US has jurisdiction to enforce laws within its borders regardless of the legal status of the individual.

And what the 14th Amendment says is that if an individual for whom the federal government and the state has jurisdiction is born in the United States, that person is a citizen.
 
Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I’m curious...did you say something similar when the Kenyan King single-handedly rewrote constitutional guidelines with DACA?

Yes, yes I did


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Link please?

Sorry, at that time I was on the RunnerWorld.com forums and they have since closed all the non-running related forums.

Back starting in the early 2000s their Letter and Opinion forums was one of the most active political forums I found. Plus most had the connection of being runners.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
 
Why does anything think that if you sneak across the border and squirt out a baby, that child SHOULD be an American citizen?

What practicality does it serve?

The 14th AMMENDEMENT was passed during Reconstruction for the purpose of allowing the children of slaves to be citizens. People who were KIDNAPPED AND TAKEN to America.

Not people sneaking across the border.

Then amend the Constitution.

Until then, anyone born in this country is an American citizen.

That hasn't been established via the Courts yet.

This is going to start that process.

Yes it has. Wok Kim Ark answers your arguments.
 
The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a baby born to an ILLEGAL has standing. In 1898 they ruled that legal immigrants children become American citizens at birth.

Certainly a ploy by Trump to force the Supreme Court to rule on the matter.

As it is, I am convinced that the 14th Amendment did not protect illegals on the question of birthright.

Mark
 
Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios

More red meat for the masses. Even he is not stupid enough to think this will work.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Anchor babies started with an EO, they can end with an EO, too.

Then get Congress to pass a real law. We're going to have to force these politicians to do something after the midterms.
Anchor babies started with an EO? What EO is that?

I believe 12989. Or it was amended to later by Bush. May not have been in it before Bush.

Fun Fact: Bush created DHS with an EO.
 
As NightFox stated earlier (with perfection, I might add) because the issue is undecided, the EO process is proper until a Court actually makes a ruling on the constitutionality of anchor-baby citizenship. The proper decision is that text of the 14th Amendment, while overly broad and sloppily written, requires citizenship to anchor babies. Such a ruling would allow congress to amend the 14th Amendment.And while we are at it, let's clarify the commerce clause, general welfare clause, add a balanced budget amendment, and an amendment to outlaw government ownership of the means of production. I have many MANY more from Constitutional Law Professor Randy Barnett's Bill of Federalism.Randy Barnett - Wikipedia
`
You are correct, like with Obama, the court will decide on the constitutionality of this issue if trump decides to apply it. that is to say whether or not a president can issue such an EO. All it takes is an appeals court to accomplish this. Whether it leads to SCOTUS and a final show down to the constitutional question of "anchor-baby status is pure conjecture, if not doubtful.
`
 
Birthright citizenship makes all the sense in the world for a nation of immigrants. It's pretty much how all our ancestors became citizens.


You are confused Moon Bat.

Our ancestors came here legally.

Illegals by definition were not invited here and their children should not be automatic citizens.

The US has the worst immigration laws in the world and thank god Trump is trying to fix them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top