Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So “obvious,” you can’t actually prove it.LOLOLLOLYou are libtarded….
We all know you lie, cheat and WELSH...……….
If that were true, it would have been easy for you to link one doing that here.
Your inability to do so demonstrates a) you’re a loser; b) you’re a liar; and c) you will welsh if you lose that bet.
Only a retard like yourself would need a link to know the sun comes up in the morning.
We are WINNING...…….
You libtards are having your ass kicked up around your ears by TRUMP...
Bite that tard...……...
What a pathetically weak bluff, welsher-to-be. If you could have posted a link to even a single Liberal here welshing, you would have. You don’t because you can’t.
You are more libtarded than most.....
Only a Dumb Ass like yourself needs a link to prove
what is obvious to the sane...……..
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
The 14th was written for freed slaves. This is about illegals having children in the US, not the something. If it is, then the Supreme Court can rule that way. I was initially thinking it was falt out wrong, but in noting cases based on the 14th, none involve illegals or their offspring.
This could make for an interesting court case.
We need look no further than United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Birthright citizenship has never even been ruled on. There's never been a judgement rendered on whether the birthright citizenship clause covers the children born to undocumented immigrants.
It's only ever been assumed. Incorrectly, to be clear. It's never even been questioned in a court.
Not only that, but "subject to the jurisdiction of" does not apply to undocumented immigrants since the U.S. never authorized their entry in the first place.
So. Go to court, present that question, and there has to be a ruling. There's never been a ruling on birthright citizenship at all.
It does apply because illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the county, city, state and country. I would suggest you look at Plyler vs Doe from 1982.
"Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
Plyler v. Doe
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
the mother was in the US.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.
No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.
If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.
She was in the US illegally. She didn't have permission to be in the US.
Whatever her nationality is that the jurisdiction for the kids nationality.
Seek better sources. That one is gonna rot your brain.
You are a liar.
the mother was in the US.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.
No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.
If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.
She was in the US illegally. Whatever her nationality is that the jurisdiction for the kids nationality.
Maybe we will get to find out if SOCTUS agrees with my view or yours.
You are a liar.
And you shouldn't be opening your pie hole about things you clearly lack the capacity to discuss.
As you can see from the posts here, once again the left demostrates their utter disdain for our borders, our immigration laws.
They want to see a system stay in place that allows people from all over the world to fly into the U.S., pop out a kid, then fly back home. It's all about taking advanrage of government handouts, and the American left wants it.
American immigration law is that if you are born here you are an American citizen.
Why do you have disdain for that law and Constitution that plainly states it?
The only intent of the 14th Amendment was to assure that former slaves were granted citizenship.
Wrong... Two illegal Mexicans for example, having a child between them does not make the child an American period. The child if conceived on Mexican soil by it's parents who are Mexican Nationals, yet is then born illegally on American soil does NOT make the child American. Even if the couple in hiding here illegally were to have sex, and we're to give birth in hiding or while being here illegally does not make the child an American citizen period. The child belongs to the parents who are here illegally, and the child and parents if deported all go together back home to the parents country.Wrong. That's an American. Just as American as you will ever be.Common sense is lacking very badly in this country anymore, because anyone with a brain should know that a child born out in a box car by an illegal Mexican couple is a Mexican national born by a Mexican couple here illegally. Duh !!!!!!
End the idiocy, and go back to having a rational mind about these things people. Whom ever figured that a child who is born of an illegal couple just because of the dirt that lay up under their feet, (some how makes the child an American citizen), uhhh was/is a complete psycho con artist from hell in my opinion.
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.
If immigrants were not under our jurisdiction, the courts would not be able to prosecute them. If they are on U.S. soil or under our flag / control, they are "within the jurisdiction."
Yeah, you misunderstand the use of "jurisdiction" in this case. It does not simply refer to being held accountable to everyday laws while you're in the country, because the same holds true for our citizens when they go abroad, but they're still OUR citizens.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" was meant specifically to include freed slaves and their descendants, and specifically to EXCLUDE people whose primary allegiance was not to the United States. At the time of the writing, they were thinking primarily of Native Americans - who are considered to be subject to tribal jurisdiction - and the offspring of people who were here for purposes other than becoming part of this country, such as perhaps soldiers in another nation's military or diplomats from other countries. Under their interpretation, according to their own writings, that would also include people who are not legal residents of the country.
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
The 14th was written for freed slaves. This is about illegals having children in the US, not the same thing. If it is, then the Supreme Court can rule that way. I was initially thinking it was flat out wrong, but in noting cases based on the 14th, none involve illegals or their offspring.
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
The 14th was written for freed slaves. This is about illegals having children in the US, not the something. If it is, then the Supreme Court can rule that way. I was initially thinking it was falt out wrong, but in noting cases based on the 14th, none involve illegals or their offspring.
Yep.... the guys who actually created the 14th Amendment stated it wasn't for people not living here as citizens.... and as you stated, none of the actual Supreme Court case law dealt with illegal aliens.... one of the cases brought up involved a Chinese immigrant, a legal immigrant and their kid..... nothing to do with illegal immigrants.....
This could make for an interesting court case.
We need look no further than United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Birthright citizenship has never even been ruled on. There's never been a judgement rendered on whether the birthright citizenship clause covers the children born to undocumented immigrants.
It's only ever been assumed. Incorrectly, to be clear. It's never even been questioned in a court.
Not only that, but "subject to the jurisdiction of" does not apply to undocumented immigrants since the U.S. never authorized their entry in the first place.
So. Go to court, present that question, and there has to be a ruling. There's never been a ruling on birthright citizenship at all.
It does apply because illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the county, city, state and country. I would suggest you look at Plyler vs Doe from 1982.
"Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish."
Plyler v. Doe
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
You are so much bullshit. The Amendment is in plain English. It doesn't matter what they think it was for. A plain reading of it confirms the conventional wisdom.
"This is not a definition of allegiance to the sovereign within one’s jurisdiction that depends on having been legally admitted to the country. Which is not surprising: while the right to exclude aliens from the jurisdiction is an ancient attribute of sovereignty, most of human history has not been characterized by airtight borders, enforced by vetting and documentation of new entrants. Laws have always assumed that anyone found in the land should be subject to the authority of the sovereign, regardless of how they got there. That rule applied unless there was some good reason – diplomatic immunity, being a lawful foreign combatant, being a member of a separately sovereign internal group like Native American tribes – to be outside the ordinary reach of the law. This is the legal backdrop that led Edward Bates, President Lincoln’s Attorney General, to write just a few years before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment:
I am quite clear in the opinion that children born in the United States of alien parents, who have never been naturalized, are native-born citizens of the United States, and, of course, do not require the formality of naturalization to entitle them to the rights and privileges of such citizenship.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporated Senator Howard’s language, is properly understood to have codified Attorney General Bates’ contemporary understanding. That is what it meant when it was adopted in 1868, and no amount of current political controversy about illegal immigration should lead conservative critics of birthright citizenship to abandon that original understanding."
Constitutional Originalism Requires Birthright Citizenship | National Review
"
the mother was in the US.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.
No this jurisdiction is that of the mother.
If they commit murder then they will be tried as murderers.
She was in the US illegally. She didn't have permission to be in the US.
Whatever her nationality is that the jurisdiction for the kids nationality.
You are a liar. The Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction means they are subject to the laws of a state. Clearly even people who are here illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the state they reside in.
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.
Those who have tried to subvert it want to make it that way. That is why you have to change it according to the rules. The 14th Amendment was a "suicide pact." It was passed for the sole purpose of destroying the Republic. Furthermore, it was done illegally.
Yeah, no.
You have every Right to be wrong.
And you have every right to live in your own fantasy world.
The only fantasy I appear to have indulged in was thinking I'd get a civil conversation out of you without insults.
You're such a pathetic liar.Nothing that Obama did has any bearing on what Trump is doing.
