Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[evenflow1969]

Hope he is successfull circumventing the constitution. Ya lets just destroy the document on whims!

the left has already achieved this, hate laws to circumvent the first amendment, gun control to circumvent the 2nd, ripping American babies out of the womb while pretending foreign children being separated from adults at the border is the outrage...etc. etc.

He does this and some one in the future will do it for second amendment. You stupid fucks do not see slipery slopes when you see one.

lol...this is already what Nancy Pelosi has publicly called for, she even said it is time to go down that slippery slope, perhaps because you are such a genius you did not recognize that you have it backwards, it is this slippery slope that justifies trumps attempt to get out ahead of his skis

Our governement was designed with checks and balances to prevent stupid shit taking over on a whim. There would be nothing more unamerican than changing the constitution with an E&O. Congress makes the laws if you do not like what they did vote them out that is how this is supposed toi work.

That is why you never go down the slippery slope, and why you start at the beginning and call out the nancy pelosi's of the world when they say it is time to do so and then allowed to remain in charge of their party...until the left is dealt with first on this matter you can expect the matter to continue unabated by both sides.

Realy when has the left attacked the first amendment. We do not call the press enemy of the state. Roe v Wade went to the supreme court, while I personally do not agree with the out come it went through the designed process by the founders to become law. This is the way our government is designed. When did Nancy try and circumvent the constitution. By your standards Trump needs to be removed and I agree. As far as gun control goes those laws were put into effect by going through the designed process noit by E&O. If you look it up The Brady bill had several republicans vote for it and several Dems vote against.

 

[NightFox]

The people that worship at The Alter of the Cult of Trump are too stupid to recognize that once a precedent is set re: EOs to alter Amendments, then the pooch is screwed.

LOL

Irony, it's just so goddamn delicious.

Go ahead Trumpians; let Don Cheeto alter the 14th A with an EO & guess what you'll get from some 'liberal' POTUS down the road? The 2nd A wil become your new toilet tissue.

Don't worry your little partisan lemming head about it, the Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to unilaterally alter the Constitution.

Why don't you write Der Fuhrer Orange Cheeto & ask him WHY IN HELL he never attended a fvcking civics class?

K, I'll get right on that though it'll have to wait until I get back from attending daily services at Our Lady of the Altered Altar, after all I can't alter my altar schedule.

… And in this week's "I'm implying your a Nazi but..." column

I, for one, have more regard for Hitler than I do for Trump

 

[boedicca]

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

He's not changing the Constitution. He's interpreting it correctly.


Senator Reverdy Johnson clarified further: “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

This reading was understood and affirmed in the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, when the Supreme Court said, “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” During the 2004 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, the Supreme Court never referred to Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Taliban fighter born in the United States, as a citizen, nor did the Supreme Court declare in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen. Hamdi was born on American soil to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia....

Birthright Citizenship and Its Allies

 

[Claudette]

I sure hope he is successful.

The 14th was added so the children of ex slaves would be recognized as America citizens. Its not needed anymore.

Its an issue that should have been addressed long ago.

If the illegals kids aren't American citizens then the mother is entitled to nothing.

Hope he is successfull circumventing the constitution. Ya lets just destroy the document on whims! He does this and some one in the future will do it for second amendment. You stupid fucks do not see slipery slopes when you see one. Our governement was designed with checks and balances to prevent stupid shit taking over on a whim. There would be nothing more unamerican than changing the constitution with an E&O. Congress makes the laws if you do not like what they did vote them out that is how this is supposed toi work.

Bullshit.

The SC will have the case and the constitution won't be circumvented you idiot.

I am not the one saying it will work. You are the one saying you hope it does. So sit and spin bitch!

You bet I hope it works. These anchor babies cost we the tax payer billions every year.

Sucks to be you.

 

[80zephyr]

I disagree. Apparently, you don't understand that the left believes that the document can be "interpreted" to warp and twist the meaning of the document to fit their agenda, all without an amendment? That is what is meant by a "living" document.

Mark

Holyfuckingshit!

You disagree with the Constitution?

Amendment XX
Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment.​

modify

3a : to make minor changes in

b : to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end

No, I don't disagree with the Constitution. The left does.

Constitution Is Clearly a Living Document | HuffPost

In their view, the Constitution can be "interpreted" to fit the needs of todays society.

Please tell me you knew this.

Mark

I don’t believe anything on Huffington post.

Meanwhile, as you’ve been shown, the Constitution can be changed through the amendment process. Deny it at your own ignorance; you’ve been edified.

Sigh. Maybe if you read a little, you would see what a living document means to the left.

The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

From the link:

Do we have a living Constitution? Do we want to have a living Constitution? A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended. On the one hand, the answer has to be yes: there's no realistic alternative to a living Constitution. Our written Constitution, the document under glass in the National Archives, was adopted 220 years ago. It can be amended, but the amendment process is very difficult. The most important amendments were added to the Constitution almost a century and a half ago, in the wake of the Civil War, and since that time many of the amendments have dealt with relatively minor matters.


Meanwhile, the world has changed in incalculable ways. The nation has grown in territory and its population has multiplied several times over. Technology has changed, the international situation has changed, the economy has changed, social mores have changed, all in ways that no one could have foreseen when the Constitution was drafted. And it is just not realistic to expect the cumbersome amendment process to keep up with these changes.


So it seems inevitable that the Constitution will change, too. It is also a good thing, because an unchanging Constitution would fit our society very badly. Either it would be ignored or, worse, it would be a hindrance, a relic that keeps us from making progress and prevents our society from working in the way it should.

Get it now?

Mark

LOLOL


You rightards crack me up. I’ve been saying the Constitution is a living document because it can be amended… And what do you post? An article saying the Constitution is a living document because it can be amended.

If that is what you got out of the link, you have a reading comprehension problem.

Mark

 

[Wayne Adams]

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 late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

 

[boedicca]

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 late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

It's not necessary to change the Constitution. It's just necessary to read it properly.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Realy when has the left attacked the first amendment.

and like the typical liberal you "pretend something else is the point" and that that is what we are talking about...I would tell you to go back and look at my post for your answer but I will save you the trouble...
My claim is that they circumvented the 1st with hate speech laws, that is what I claimed, you needed to reword it so you could pretend you had a point

We do not call the press enemy of the state.

neither do enemies of the state

Roe v Wade went to the supreme court, while I personally do not agree with the out come it went through the designed process by the founders to become law.

And we are back to pretending that is the point.
I do agree with the ruling, but the point you are hiding from is that the left makes believe it is more outrageous to temporarily separate [or as you probably prefer "ripped"] non-American children from adults being arrested [or otherwise taken into custody of some sort] than it is to rip them from the womb...ROE V WADE was just another way for you to pretend something else was the point being made.

This is the way our government is designed.

You will need to keep that in mind in the future

When did Nancy try and circumvent the constitution.

When she claimed it was necessary to go down the slippery slope to enact stricter gun laws...it that is true will you admit that is what she is doing? if not then why even disagree with me?

By your standards Trump needs to be removed and I agree.

you mean the make believe standards you assigned to me and that if the ballot box gets it wrong you should be allowed to remove the president simply cuz ya saw it in the fake news media?

As far as gun control goes those laws were put into effect by going through the designed process noit by E&O. If you look it up The Brady bill had several republicans vote for it and several Dems vote against.

And none of that [especially the ones where gop went along] means gun control is not circumventing the constitution, in fact the only thing it means is if you can justify those actions and not admit to hypocrisy then trump is just as justified as you are...that's what makes it a slippery slope genius.

 

[Wayne Adams]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

I've often wondered why we didn't do this. If people are here illegally, why should their children be legal? It is a whole 'nother matter if the parents are here legally but not yet citizens.
I think there will be a Constitutional question about it, but why wouldn't an Amendment like that pass? Everyone says they don't support illegal immigration. So why would they support these children becoming US citizens?

Here is why I would support those already here becoming citizens:

1) Many of those you are talking about have already served in the armed services of this country and even given their lives for it

2) The children did not break any laws

3) Having grown up here and many speaking English with NO ability to speak Spanish, deportation would be deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment as per the Constitution. It would be a waste of effort to try the matter in the Courts as the rulings are clear.

The real solution to this issue is to revisit the 14th Amendment itself. Trump cannot amend the Constitution with an Executive Order. Neither should you want him to rule by Executive Fiat. But, we can all admit that the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and the United States Supreme Court could agree that the 14th Amendment is NOT law since its ratification fails to meet constitutional muster.

If there is no 14th Amendment, there is no such thing (and there really is NO such thing) as an anchor baby. It takes the issue off the table and reduces many other problems.

 

[Claudette]

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 late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

It's not necessary to change the Constitution. It's just necessary to read it properly.

I agree and I'm wondering why no one has ever challenged this. It should have been done years ago.

 

[dblack]

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 late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

It's not necessary to change the Constitution. It's just necessary to read it properly.

I agree and I'm wondering why no one has ever challenged this. It should have been done years ago.

I need to read up on this one - ie actually read the 14th Amendment and the politics behind it. Obviously, the birthright citizenship thing was targeted at ex-slaves, but couldn't they have just granted them citizenship outright, as a one shot deal? The fact that the made it an amendment, and that it was passed at a time when the nation was eager for more immigrants suggests there was more to it.

 

[healthmyths]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

 

[boedicca]

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 late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

It's not necessary to change the Constitution. It's just necessary to read it properly.

I agree and I'm wondering why no one has ever challenged this. It should have been done years ago.

I need to read up on this one - ie actually read the 14th Amendment and the politics behind it. Obviously, the birthright citizenship thing was targeted at ex-slaves, but couldn't they have just granted them citizenship outright, as a one shot deal? The fact that the made it an amendment, and that it was passed at a time when the nation was eager for more immigrants suggests there was more to it.

Actually, the reason the Amendment was passed was because some states were refusing to recognize former slaves as citizens. It was not written to encourage immigration.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment

 

[Claudette]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

 

[Wayne Adams]

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 late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

It's not necessary to change the Constitution. It's just necessary to read it properly.

I agree and I'm wondering why no one has ever challenged this. It should have been done years ago.

The United States Supreme Court is made up of attorneys approved by the American Bar Association (the ABA.) It is the most liberal organization in the United States save of the Communist Party USA.

Additionally, the United States Supreme Court is made up of Jews and Catholics. They are in no hurry to change standing precedents and break up families over minor immigration infractions. Their commitment to keeping families together is a bit more pro-family than anti-immigrant.

Finally, changing standing precedents is not a popular subject. It's how we changed from a Republic to a Democracy. The United States Supreme Court would rule one way, public opinion would change and the high Court would change their own precedents to appease the public. George Washington (in his Farewell Address) warned against this practice:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

...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."

 

[boedicca]

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 late for this discussion, but the proposal won't work. The only way to change the Constitution on this point is to amend it.

It's not necessary to change the Constitution. It's just necessary to read it properly.

I agree and I'm wondering why no one has ever challenged this. It should have been done years ago.

The United States Supreme Court is made up of attorneys approved by the American Bar Association (the ABA.) It is the most liberal organization in the United States save of the Communist Party USA.

Additionally, the United States Supreme Court is made up of Jews and Catholics. They are in no hurry to change standing precedents and break up families over minor immigration infractions. Their commitment to keeping families together is a bit more pro-family than anti-immigrant.

Finally, changing standing precedents is not a popular subject. It's how we changed from a Republic to a Democracy. The United States Supreme Court would rule one way, public opinion would change and the high Court would change their own precedents to appease the public. George Washington (in his Farewell Address) warned against this practice:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.

...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."

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, bub.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[healthmyths]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

A Jamaican man who was illegally in the United States when he fatally shot another man was slapped with 25 years behind bars Monday.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/25/illegal-immigrant-who-killed-homeowner-gets-25-years/
simple as using the internet to answer the question!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

The key statement that SCOTUS will have to interpret is this:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

The question regarding "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Trump wants to end birthright citizenship — here's what the law says about that

Now the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the basic body of US immigration law, also says a "person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth."
This though was a Congressional act signed by the president at that time.
Again... the key phrase "who is subject to the jurisdiction".

Exactly what does the "jurisdiction" mean?

Well I'm sure this will be the KEY element in the SCOTUS ruling, i.e. a person born or naturalized in the United States is "subject to the (jurisdiction)" what is
this "jurisdiction"?
Jurisdiction: Original, Supreme Court | Federal Judicial Center

Yup and because these illegals are Mexican or whatever nationality they belong to jurisdiction is the key.

They aren't American they are in the jurisdiction of whatever country they come from. That is the key. Jurisdiction.

So, they are not subject to our laws, if one kills someone, they cannot be arrested and charged with a crime?

If they can, then they are in the jurisdiction of the US.

A Jamaican man who was illegally in the United States when he fatally shot another man was slapped with 25 years behind bars Monday.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/25/illegal-immigrant-who-killed-homeowner-gets-25-years/
simple as using the internet to answer the question!

Exactly, so they are in fact under the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[Redfish]

the 14th amendment was put in place to confer citizenship on freed slaves and their children that were born in the USA, it was never intended to cover the children of people here illegally or even legally as travelers.

It needs to be tested in the SC, and it seems that we are moving in that direction, and that's good for America.