We need to stop birthright citizenship IMMEDIATELY!

[Care4all]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

I think it's just a matter of changing the interpretation back to it's original intent.

it's original intent was to give ALL PERSONS under our jurisdiction, the birthright citizenship we already were giving to children of white foreigners living here.

i quoted the original intent word for word from the people who wrote it, and then followed up with the SC passing their opinion on it. if you could provide links in kind to back up what you are saying i'd be more inclined to stop being up your king in this match. : )

The court observed that under English law, citizenship was by “birth within the allegiance, also called ‘ligealty,’ ‘obedience,’ ‘faith,’ or ‘power’ of the king.” Under the principle, “all persons born within the king’s allegiance and subject to his protection” were citizens. Allegiance and protection obligations were “not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom.” Therefore, all “children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.” According to Justice Gray, the “same rule was in force in all the English colonies” in America.

He referenced an 1832 case, Levy v. McCartee, in which Justice Joseph Story wrote, “If an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,” and any such child was “a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law.”

Aside from the common law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 addressed the matter, stating that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Most importantly, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution recites: “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.”

Some, including the president, argue that the qualification “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” may help to deprive children of illegal immigrants of birthright citizenship. But this is wishful thinking. The wording, Justice Gray explained in Ark, “would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words ... children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state.” Both, he noted, under the law in England and in American colonies, “had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.”

To support this argument, Justice Gray referred to an even earlier ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall’s words in The Exchange v. McFaddon (1812). Marshall wrote unequivocally that aliens are subjected to the jurisdiction of the sovereign where they are found, reasoning that “it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if (aliens) did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.”

So, if illegal Mexicans or other nationals are found in the United States, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As Marshall noted, Mexico or other sovereigns do not have “any motive for wishing such exemption.”

The court’s ruling in the Ark case does not seem to exclude the children of illegal immigrants from their birthright of citizenship. Justice Gray was clear that the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment mandate this conclusion.

Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship

 

[irosie91]

I ardently HOPE that those people who ALREADY qualify as ----a "birthright
citizen" are not affected-------such a policy would be a disaster-------the
new idea would have to be introduced carefully-----and not ABRUPTLY

 

[iceberg]

and from your post:

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.”

my longer post to you initially had 2 parts. the 2nd part addressed what this meant. flip back to earlier in the thread where i put the link and (2) paragraphs that stated the original quote then the SCOTUS ruling on the red above here.

it doesn't seem to mean what you think it means or we keep just disagreeing on what was meant at the time.

i'll pull it back over:
"The Supreme Court stated in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” This was dismissed as an obiter dictum in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), but it was the prevailing interpretation up to that point. This was again confirmed in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), in which the Court decided that an Indian who had severed his tribal ties was nonetheless not a citizen due to the fact that he owed allegiance to his tribe at the time of his birth."

this "excludes" citizens or subjects born in foreign states. now if that encompasses more than the current "anchor baby" topic, so be it. that would be a difference to determine on a case by case basis but this seems pretty clear that you can't come over here a non-citizen and give birth to a citizen.

 

[irosie91]

the 14th was simply giving blacks and all persons, the same birthright of children born to white foreigners/aliens....

we followed Common Law regarding birthrights... at least for white foreigners.... until the 14th, which made this common law birthright available to blacks and others of color... and shortly after, to Native Americans on reservations....

birthright citizenship was already law for white foreigners...

Just another excuse for illegal aliens to cut line...

yes, more than likely, it is....

if we want it changed, we are going to need an amendment to the Constitution.

ok

 

[oreo]

no.

A. Graham, "The Original Congressional Debate on Birthright Citizenship" | Counter-Currents Publishing

"The minutes of the 1866 congressional debate over the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment make for interesting reading. The clause is proposed by Senator Jacob Howard, who adds that “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” are excluded from it as dictated by the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”[1]"

the way you are saying is completely wrong as per the people who wrote the amendment. you can argue with them if you'd like but if you're going to use the constitution as proof, use it as intended, not as you may wish for it to be.

the SC ruled on it back in the day - so the liberals need to stop changing it cause they want votes, or for whatever reason they feel the need to today.

"The Supreme Court stated in the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.” This was dismissed as an obiter dictum in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), but it was the prevailing interpretation up to that point. This was again confirmed in Elk v. Wilkins (1884), in which the Court decided that an Indian who had severed his tribal ties was nonetheless not a citizen due to the fact that he owed allegiance to his tribe at the time of his birth."

nope, you are reading it wrong.... completely wrong..... alien, foreign, children and family of diplomats and diplomats is one specific group of people.

if the 14th amendment was meant in any other way, then all the white European Scottish and Irish and Italian and German etc.children born here of parents not citizens, would not be citizens and subjected to deportation and that IS NOT what they wanted.

give it up, i ain't buying your bullshit. this was debated and decided upon by the supreme court to NOT apply to the anchor baby situation. your not liking it and or inability to comprehend it doesn't change it.

if you are not a citizen of this country then you are an alien. ergo - your babies are as well. i found you a very specific example, several of them actually, that spells this out under no uncertain terms. you're now trying to interpret what they wanted and or didn't want *after* they told you. you want cred for this then do as i did and offer views from the people who wrote, debated and judged on this AT THE TIME to address your views. you incessant NO NO NO ITS MY WAY is not proof that you are right. just that you WANT to be.

check and mate.

no, it was not decided in the mannr you are making up....

I AM QUOTING what the Supreme Court SAID on it in their decision/opinion on it in US vs Ark.... silly one!

CHECK MATE!

Regarding birth rights in the 14th amendment is very clear, there is no fudge room.

"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."

Under the 5th amendment to the Constitution.
The only way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution, requires 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

You'll note that the President has no say in this process.

"

what the FUCK does this have to do with repealing a thing? you can't debate the topic so you just wah a lot and wonder why people think you're a doosher.

i've already said an EO is stupid and not what we need here. but then you ignore the SCOTUS ruling AT THE TIME of what 'under our jurisdiction" means so you can get a crybaby WAH WAH pic in and try to demean someone by you being the dumbass.

I am telling you, you're fucked Dumbass. You can rant & rave all you want to, but UNTIL you can convince 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and 38 State Legislatures that they need to repeal or rewrite the 14th amendment you're chasing your tail on this.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

Paul Ryan rejects Trump plan to end birthright citizenship with executive order: 'You obviously cannot do that'

 

[BlindBoo]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

I think it's just a matter of changing the interpretation back to it's original intent.

it's original intent was to give ALL PERSONS under our jurisdiction, the birthright citizenship we already were giving to children of white foreigners living here.

That only applies to people who file for legal asylum and renounce their citizenship. They also have to have cause to be qualified for refugee status. Political persecution..... etc.

Hmm, not seeing that clause in the amendment.

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........

"Does the idea that undocumented migrants’ children are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” since they are “subject to some foreign power” make lexical or historical sense? For four reasons, I think not."

The faulty legal logic behind Trump’s birthright citizenship proposal, explained by a law professor

".....At the time of the 14th Amendment, therefore, there were untold thousands (or more) children and grandchildren of “illegal immigrants” among the former slaves.

But no one at the time, or since, has suggested that their entry into the United States in clear violation of federal law robbed their children of birthright citizenship. At least until now. If the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship was to have had its intended (and, in fact, historically observed) effect, it cannot exclude the children of the undocumented."

 

[iceberg]

nope, you are reading it wrong.... completely wrong..... alien, foreign, children and family of diplomats and diplomats is one specific group of people.

if the 14th amendment was meant in any other way, then all the white European Scottish and Irish and Italian and German etc.children born here of parents not citizens, would not be citizens and subjected to deportation and that IS NOT what they wanted.

give it up, i ain't buying your bullshit. this was debated and decided upon by the supreme court to NOT apply to the anchor baby situation. your not liking it and or inability to comprehend it doesn't change it.

if you are not a citizen of this country then you are an alien. ergo - your babies are as well. i found you a very specific example, several of them actually, that spells this out under no uncertain terms. you're now trying to interpret what they wanted and or didn't want *after* they told you. you want cred for this then do as i did and offer views from the people who wrote, debated and judged on this AT THE TIME to address your views. you incessant NO NO NO ITS MY WAY is not proof that you are right. just that you WANT to be.

check and mate.

no, it was not decided in the mannr you are making up....

I AM QUOTING what the Supreme Court SAID on it in their decision/opinion on it in US vs Ark.... silly one!

CHECK MATE!

Regarding birth rights in the 14th amendment is very clear, there is no fudge room.

"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."

Under the 5th amendment to the Constitution.
The only way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution, requires 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

You'll note that the President has no say in this process.

"

what the FUCK does this have to do with repealing a thing? you can't debate the topic so you just wah a lot and wonder why people think you're a doosher.

i've already said an EO is stupid and not what we need here. but then you ignore the SCOTUS ruling AT THE TIME of what 'under our jurisdiction" means so you can get a crybaby WAH WAH pic in and try to demean someone by you being the dumbass.

I am telling you, you're fucked Dumbass. You can rant & rave all you want to, but UNTIL you can convince 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and 38 State Legislatures that they need to repeal or rewrite the 14th amendment you're chasing your tail on this.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

you're not even talking in the same topics, just putting in your clever "fartwork" and thinking that helps make you look anything other than re-retarded.

and you can't even decide which pics to use, can you?

if you ever figure out the depths of your stupidity, holler. i'm pretty sure you have it in common with the Marianas trench.

 

[mudwhistle]

We have had birthright citizenship for 150 years
Why the sudden urgency to stop it?

We've had GUNS for over 200 years, why the sudden urgency to confiscate them and regulate them out of existence?

Because Democrats have plans they don't want us to know.....and know we won't like.

 

[irosie91]

nope, you are reading it wrong.... completely wrong..... alien, foreign, children and family of diplomats and diplomats is one specific group of people.

if the 14th amendment was meant in any other way, then all the white European Scottish and Irish and Italian and German etc.children born here of parents not citizens, would not be citizens and subjected to deportation and that IS NOT what they wanted.

give it up, i ain't buying your bullshit. this was debated and decided upon by the supreme court to NOT apply to the anchor baby situation. your not liking it and or inability to comprehend it doesn't change it.

if you are not a citizen of this country then you are an alien. ergo - your babies are as well. i found you a very specific example, several of them actually, that spells this out under no uncertain terms. you're now trying to interpret what they wanted and or didn't want *after* they told you. you want cred for this then do as i did and offer views from the people who wrote, debated and judged on this AT THE TIME to address your views. you incessant NO NO NO ITS MY WAY is not proof that you are right. just that you WANT to be.

check and mate.

no, it was not decided in the mannr you are making up....

I AM QUOTING what the Supreme Court SAID on it in their decision/opinion on it in US vs Ark.... silly one!

CHECK MATE!

Regarding birth rights in the 14th amendment is very clear, there is no fudge room.

"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."

Under the 5th amendment to the Constitution.
The only way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution, requires 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

You'll note that the President has no say in this process.

"

what the FUCK does this have to do with repealing a thing? you can't debate the topic so you just wah a lot and wonder why people think you're a doosher.

i've already said an EO is stupid and not what we need here. but then you ignore the SCOTUS ruling AT THE TIME of what 'under our jurisdiction" means so you can get a crybaby WAH WAH pic in and try to demean someone by you being the dumbass.

I am telling you, you're fucked Dumbass. You can rant & rave all you want to, but UNTIL you can convince 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and 38 State Legislatures that they need to repeal or rewrite the 14th amendment you're chasing your tail on this.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

an uphill battle

 

[oreo]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

I think it's just a matter of changing the interpretation back to it's original intent.

it's original intent was to give ALL PERSONS under our jurisdiction, the birthright citizenship we already were giving to children of white foreigners living here.

That only applies to people who file for legal asylum and renounce their citizenship. They also have to have cause to be qualified for refugee status. Political persecution..... etc.

Hmm, not seeing that clause in the amendment.

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........

"Does the idea that undocumented migrants’ children are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” since they are “subject to some foreign power” make lexical or historical sense? For four reasons, I think not."

The faulty legal logic behind Trump’s birthright citizenship proposal, explained by a law professor

".....At the time of the 14th Amendment, therefore, there were untold thousands (or more) children and grandchildren of “illegal immigrants” among the former slaves.

But no one at the time, or since, has suggested that their entry into the United States in clear violation of federal law robbed their children of birthright citizenship. At least until now. If the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship was to have had its intended (and, in fact, historically observed) effect, it cannot exclude the children of the undocumented."

This is the exact wording of the 14th amendment in the Constitution regarding birthrights.

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..

Then the 14th goes into equal justice under the law, etc., etc.

If Trump were able to issue an executive order to repeal this clause in the Constitution or rewrite it, then Democrats would be able to do the same with the 2nd amendment.

The ONLY way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution requires, 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states, (or 38 state legislatures.)
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

This process has nothing to do with the President.
Paul Ryan rejects Trump plan to end birthright citizenship with executive order: 'You obviously cannot do that'

 

[irosie91]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

I think it's just a matter of changing the interpretation back to it's original intent.

it's original intent was to give ALL PERSONS under our jurisdiction, the birthright citizenship we already were giving to children of white foreigners living here.

That only applies to people who file for legal asylum and renounce their citizenship. They also have to have cause to be qualified for refugee status. Political persecution..... etc.

Hmm, not seeing that clause in the amendment.

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........

"Does the idea that undocumented migrants’ children are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” since they are “subject to some foreign power” make lexical or historical sense? For four reasons, I think not."

The faulty legal logic behind Trump’s birthright citizenship proposal, explained by a law professor

".....At the time of the 14th Amendment, therefore, there were untold thousands (or more) children and grandchildren of “illegal immigrants” among the former slaves.

But no one at the time, or since, has suggested that their entry into the United States in clear violation of federal law robbed their children of birthright citizenship. At least until now. If the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship was to have had its intended (and, in fact, historically observed) effect, it cannot exclude the children of the undocumented."

This is the exact wording of the 14th amendment in the Constitution regarding birthrights.

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..

Then the 14th goes into equal justice under the law, etc., etc.

If Trump were able to issue an executive order to repeal this clause in the Constitution or rewrite it, then Democrats would be able to do the same with the 2nd amendment.

The ONLY way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution requires, 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states, (or 38 state legislatures.)
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

This process has nothing to do with the President.

be not silly ---either side can only TRY

 

[iceberg]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

I think it's just a matter of changing the interpretation back to it's original intent.

it's original intent was to give ALL PERSONS under our jurisdiction, the birthright citizenship we already were giving to children of white foreigners living here.

That only applies to people who file for legal asylum and renounce their citizenship. They also have to have cause to be qualified for refugee status. Political persecution..... etc.

Hmm, not seeing that clause in the amendment.

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........

"Does the idea that undocumented migrants’ children are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” since they are “subject to some foreign power” make lexical or historical sense? For four reasons, I think not."

The faulty legal logic behind Trump’s birthright citizenship proposal, explained by a law professor

".....At the time of the 14th Amendment, therefore, there were untold thousands (or more) children and grandchildren of “illegal immigrants” among the former slaves.

But no one at the time, or since, has suggested that their entry into the United States in clear violation of federal law robbed their children of birthright citizenship. At least until now. If the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship was to have had its intended (and, in fact, historically observed) effect, it cannot exclude the children of the undocumented."

This is the exact wording of the 14th amendment in the Constitution regarding birthrights.

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..

Then the 14th goes into equal justice under the law, etc., etc.

If Trump were able to issue an executive order to repeal this clause in the Constitution or rewrite it, then Democrats would be able to do the same with the 2nd amendment.

The ONLY way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution requires, 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states, (or 38 state legislatures.)
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

This process has nothing to do with the President.

and while you keep calling ME stupid, *I* never said it did.

good to see you keep up as well as you're consistent with your "funny" pictures.

 

[irosie91]

nope, you are reading it wrong.... completely wrong..... alien, foreign, children and family of diplomats and diplomats is one specific group of people.

if the 14th amendment was meant in any other way, then all the white European Scottish and Irish and Italian and German etc.children born here of parents not citizens, would not be citizens and subjected to deportation and that IS NOT what they wanted.

give it up, i ain't buying your bullshit. this was debated and decided upon by the supreme court to NOT apply to the anchor baby situation. your not liking it and or inability to comprehend it doesn't change it.

if you are not a citizen of this country then you are an alien. ergo - your babies are as well. i found you a very specific example, several of them actually, that spells this out under no uncertain terms. you're now trying to interpret what they wanted and or didn't want *after* they told you. you want cred for this then do as i did and offer views from the people who wrote, debated and judged on this AT THE TIME to address your views. you incessant NO NO NO ITS MY WAY is not proof that you are right. just that you WANT to be.

check and mate.

no, it was not decided in the mannr you are making up....

I AM QUOTING what the Supreme Court SAID on it in their decision/opinion on it in US vs Ark.... silly one!

CHECK MATE!

Regarding birth rights in the 14th amendment is very clear, there is no fudge room.

"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."

Under the 5th amendment to the Constitution.
The only way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution, requires 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

You'll note that the President has no say in this process.

"

what the FUCK does this have to do with repealing a thing? you can't debate the topic so you just wah a lot and wonder why people think you're a doosher.

i've already said an EO is stupid and not what we need here. but then you ignore the SCOTUS ruling AT THE TIME of what 'under our jurisdiction" means so you can get a crybaby WAH WAH pic in and try to demean someone by you being the dumbass.

I am telling you, you're fucked Dumbass. You can rant & rave all you want to, but UNTIL you can convince 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and 38 State Legislatures that they need to repeal or rewrite the 14th amendment you're chasing your tail on this.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

Paul Ryan rejects Trump plan to end birthright citizenship with executive order: 'You obviously cannot do that'

I think that the congress vote thing can VERY WELL HAPPEN

 

[oreo]

give it up, i ain't buying your bullshit. this was debated and decided upon by the supreme court to NOT apply to the anchor baby situation. your not liking it and or inability to comprehend it doesn't change it.

if you are not a citizen of this country then you are an alien. ergo - your babies are as well. i found you a very specific example, several of them actually, that spells this out under no uncertain terms. you're now trying to interpret what they wanted and or didn't want *after* they told you. you want cred for this then do as i did and offer views from the people who wrote, debated and judged on this AT THE TIME to address your views. you incessant NO NO NO ITS MY WAY is not proof that you are right. just that you WANT to be.

check and mate.

no, it was not decided in the mannr you are making up....

I AM QUOTING what the Supreme Court SAID on it in their decision/opinion on it in US vs Ark.... silly one!

CHECK MATE!

Regarding birth rights in the 14th amendment is very clear, there is no fudge room.

"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."

Under the 5th amendment to the Constitution.
The only way to change, rewrite, repeal or add an amendment to the Constitution, requires 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House, and then it has to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

You'll note that the President has no say in this process.

"

what the FUCK does this have to do with repealing a thing? you can't debate the topic so you just wah a lot and wonder why people think you're a doosher.

i've already said an EO is stupid and not what we need here. but then you ignore the SCOTUS ruling AT THE TIME of what 'under our jurisdiction" means so you can get a crybaby WAH WAH pic in and try to demean someone by you being the dumbass.

I am telling you, you're fucked Dumbass. You can rant & rave all you want to, but UNTIL you can convince 2/3's of the Senate, 2/3's of the House and 38 State Legislatures that they need to repeal or rewrite the 14th amendment you're chasing your tail on this.
What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center

Paul Ryan rejects Trump plan to end birthright citizenship with executive order: 'You obviously cannot do that'

I think that the congress vote thing can VERY WELL HAPPEN

I don't know about that, and even it made it past the Senate & House with 2/3's vote you would still have to convince 38 state legislatures to ratify a change to the 14th. And I think the chance of that happening is zero to none.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Hmm, not seeing that clause in the amendment.

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........

Annnnnnnnd like everyone else.....you are not informed. <sigh>

Please look into "Law of nations"

Things were different in the 18th Century. The context is overlooked (on purpose), but it's there.
There is explicit wording in the Constitution BEFORE the 14th about immigration.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

We need to end this sort rightwing ignorance, fear, bigotry, and hate immediately.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

it's not a law, it's in our Constitution and not so easily changed... 2/3's of the house, 2/3s of the senate and 3/4's of the state legislatures with 2/3rds voting yes on the change is needed to amend the 14th amendment... I believe?

It can be done though, just a tough road.

It should not be done; the notion is ignorant and hateful.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

So, for those who are wondering what the F is happening that our country is being invaded and no one is able to stop it......

The invasion has been underway for a very long time.
Congress doesn't WANT to stop it.

We are being force fed a European model of Globalization. Simple.

As I've said 1000 times, ONLY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THEMSELVES can turn things around......and they "could"....but it wouldn't be pretty and someone might get a blister on their little finger or not be able to watch netflix (OMG!!!!!) Noooooooooo!!!!!!

The American people have chosen their priorities.....freedom is NOT one of them

PS....place your bets....Guns WILL go...they HAVE to

 

[McRocket]

This is an emergency, day by day America is being conquered. No wonder a literal invasion has gathered on our doorstep.

How is this crazy law still in the book? No serious nation could allow anything of the sort. Even the republicans haven't paid any attention to the issue fully endorsing the crazy. What a disappointment. Only the man with balls, that is Trump has finally put some attention to the issue after 4D chessing the supreme court for his support. Just tells how completely useless our politicians are.

We need more real men with balls, more people like the God Emperor. Can't go wrong with that message going into the election. Just imagine if we had more people with common sense making the shots. Take back our country!

And you need to stop talking - you are making a fool of yourself.

You Trumpbots are SOOOO predictable. Virtually no one was talking about this - except every now and then - until Trump brought it up.

Now you people are FREAKING out about it.

You Trumpbots are acting like brainless minions....who do and think ANYTHING that Trump asks you to think.

And this is proof positive of that.


You people are SO pathetic.

He's totally unhinged. In other words, your classic trump bootlicker.

This is why I am not as worried about America as many (especially the media) have been since Trump came to power. Because almost all of the recent increase in xenophobic drivel has come/been instigated by Trump and his minions (blindly following his instructions).
He has NEVER been over 50% in the respected polls...and he clearly (barring a war), probably never will be.
His power will obviously be diminished after the midterms. And he will almost certainly (again, barring a war he starts to save his political butt) be gone by late January 2021.
And when he is gone - his Trumpbots (who are mostly old and uneducated anyway) will no longer be listened to/humoured. And the intense xenophobic rhetoric will surely diminish back to 'normal'.

In other words - THIS SAD TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY WILL PASS.

I hope so. Trumpism, aka neo fascism, takes place:

• when a free press has been attacked and The BIG LIE has eviscerated its essential purpose, a check on power;
• when democracy has been mocked by its leader and biddable people believe elections are rigged;
• when democracy itself has been attacked by a foreign power and the majority party fails to defend our nation.

All Trumpism - to me - is Trump (and his minions) desperately trying to make America like it was during the 1950's: 'white', male dominated, much less immigration, America was easily the richest/most powerful nation in the world (because the rest of the the major powers were either communist or broke/destroyed from WW2) and America made almost everything it consumed.

U.S. Immigrant Population and Share over Time, 1850-Present

Historical racial and ethnic demographics of the United States - Wikipedia


Now? The 'white' male is no longer 'king', immigration of non-'whites' has skyrocketed, the other major countries have largely abandoned communism and/or have rebuilt and are thriving AND America does not produce much any more - so the low-skilled, American worker is losing his job/power, hand over fist.

But instead of adapting to the new reality, many of these older, uneducated, 'white' males are just bitter and looking for excuses/people to blame. Then Trump came along and promised MAGA (or 'Make America like it was during the 1950's) again and gave them someone to blame - just like Hitler did in the 1930's to a broken Germany. Then it was Jews, Communists (Bolsheviks, he called them) and 'inferior' people/races, etc.. Today? Trump blames the media, immigrants and free trade, etc..

Of course, it's all nonsense.

But once Trump fades, so will the voice of these people. And since they are largely old, uneducated and generally without power...they will die soon enough. And so will die their anger, bitterness and xenophobia.

I am convinced most of this will pass and will just be looked back on by history as a bad footnote in US political history.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hmm, not seeing that clause in the amendment.

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........

Annnnnnnnd like everyone else.....you are not informed. <sigh>

Please look into "Law of nations"

Things were different in the 18th Century. The context is overlooked (on purpose), but it's there.
There is explicit wording in the Constitution BEFORE the 14th about immigration.

Nothing in the Amendment that excludes children of undocumented people.