And end to birthright citizenship?

[This_person]

Why do you think it’s okay for Trump to change the 14th amendment with an EO?

I thought you were for the rule of law and a traditionalist.

One more example of you flipping over and taking it from Trump despite all your protests to the contrary

Here's what the 14th says:

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.​

Here's what I agreed with:

What I don't get is how birthright citizenship has been bastardized to mean that everyone in the baby's family gets to stay as well. It seems pretty simple to say, yes, a baby born in the US is entitled to citizenship but not his mom and dad and brothers and grandparents and first cousins twice removed. Mommy and Dad can either leave their child with legal guardians or take it home with them, but they cannot stay.​

How are those ideas contradictory?

 

[This_person]

He probably still thinks Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

And that Trump started the "birther" movement.

 

[Kyle]

 

[Sapidus]

This is an excellent example of "false memories based on fake news" that we're talking about in that other thread.

Do you believe Melania deserved an “Einstein VISA?

Do you think Melania’s parents would be in this country if they aren’t related by marriage to the president?

 

[Sapidus]

Here's what the 14th says:

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.​

Here's what I agreed with:

What I don't get is how birthright citizenship has been bastardized to mean that everyone in the baby's family gets to stay as well. It seems pretty simple to say, yes, a baby born in the US is entitled to citizenship but not his mom and dad and brothers and grandparents and first cousins twice removed. Mommy and Dad can either leave their child with legal guardians or take it home with them, but they cannot stay.​

How are those ideas contradictory?

It’s not. But it doesn’t address the proposed rule change that is the subject of this discussion


Did you read the article?

 

[This_person]

It’s not. But it doesn’t address the proposed rule change that is the subject of this discussion

Well, it kind of does. Re-read the 14th. It is reasonable to consider an illegal alien not subject to US law, as they are not legally in the US and therefore should be removed. Many countries agree with that - recall Mexico just wanted to pull their criminal citizen out of the US to "punish" him there?

If you're asking my opinion, I do not look at it that way. I look at it the way @vraiblonde stated, and I agreed.

 

[This_person]

Do you believe Melania deserved an “Einstein VISA?

Do you think Melania’s parents would be in this country if they aren’t related by marriage to the president?

yes, and yes.

 

[Clem72]

Trump May Issue Exec Order Ending Citizenship For Babies Of Illegal Immigrants: Calls It ‘Frankly Ridiculous’

On Wednesday, President Trump stated that he is thinking of issuing an executive order that would prevent the children born on American soil to illegal immigrants from gaining automatic American citizenship, calling so-called “birthright citizenship” “frankly ridiculous.” Trump told reporters...

www.dailywire.com

I'm in favor of this, but I'm pretty sure it will take more than an EO.

What I don't get is how birthright citizenship has been bastardized to mean that everyone in the baby's family gets to stay as well. It seems pretty simple to say, yes, a baby born in the US is entitled to citizenship but not his mom and dad and brothers and grandparents and first cousins twice removed. Mommy and Dad can either leave their child with legal guardians or take it home with them, but they cannot stay.

Chain migration is what really needs to be addressed. Miss your family? Then go your ass home.

I wouldn't be for removing birthright citizenship, it's a considerable piece of our history/identity as a country. But i'm with you on the chain migration. They can have dual citizenship and move here when they are of legal age (or before if a citizen is willing to be their guardian or their family abandons them to the foster system).

Citizenship is a right for adults anyways, kids aren't really citizens (can't vote, don't have self sovereignty). But I think we have beat this one to death before.

 

[Sapidus]

yes, and yes.

“, she was granted a green card in the elite EB-1 program, which was designed for renowned academic researchers, multinational business executives or those in other fields, such as Olympic athletes and Oscar-winning actors, who demonstrated “sustained national and international acclaim.”

Under which criteria?

Why doesn’t chain migration apply to her parents?

 

[Sapidus]

Well, it kind of does. Re-read the 14th. It is reasonable to consider an illegal alien not subject to US law, as they are not legally in the US and therefore should be removed. Many countries agree with that - recall Mexico just wanted to pull their criminal citizen out of the US to "punish" him there?

If you're asking my opinion, I do not look at it that way. I look at it the way @vraiblonde stated, and I agreed.

That is not what it says nor how it has been interpreted or put into practice.

You can agree with Virus all you want but this change would mean Trump changing the 14th amendment by EO


Something you claim to be against except for when it comes to Trump who you give blanket authority

 

[This_person]

“, she was granted a green card in the elite EB-1 program, which was designed for renowned academic researchers, multinational business executives or those in other fields, such as Olympic athletes and Oscar-winning actors, who demonstrated “sustained national and international acclaim.”

Under which criteria?

Why doesn’t chain migration apply to her parents?

Do you acknowledge that they are here legally and in a documented manner, making them incomparable to the illegal aliens?

 

[Sapidus]

Do you acknowledge that they are here legally and in a documented manner, making them incomparable to the illegal aliens?

She married a US citizen and then used her position to bring in other non citizens who then became citizens.

The exact same scenario as the “so called “ chain migrants”

It’s not different you may feel it is because their skin is lighter or they have more money but it’s the exact same scenario


And what criteria did Melania fit for that Einstein Visa?

You skipped that part

 

[This_person]

She married a US citizen and then used her position to bring in other non citizens who then became citizens.

The exact same scenario as the “so called “ chain migrants”

It’s not different you may feel it is because their skin is lighter or they have more money but it’s the exact same scenario


And what criteria did Melania fit for that Einstein Visa?

You skipped that part

She was a citizen before she married a citizen.

Where did her parents live when she became a citizen?

Do you acknowledge that they are here legally, making them incomparable to illegal aliens?

 

[WingsOfGold]

You should tell that to Melania's parents

You got the phone number there sport?

 

[GURPS]

Stop trying to Gaslight people.

Says the guy who posts OPINION as Fact

 

[GURPS]

That is not what it says nor how it has been interpreted or put into practice.

Just because YOU Believe it, and Say Something, That Does NOT Make It True or Everyone Will Have The SAME Opinion

 

[This_person]

That is not what it says nor how it has been interpreted or put into practice.

At times yes, at times no.

You can agree with Virus all you want but this change would mean Trump changing the 14th amendment by EO

Well, he can't change the 14th by EO, no matter how many times other presidents like Obama have tried to change the constitution by EO. His position - while I disagree with it - is arguable and reasonable as an interpretation.

 

[herb749]

Why do you think it’s okay for Trump to change the 14th amendment with an EO?

I thought you were for the rule of law and a traditionalist.

One more example of you flipping over and taking it from Trump despite all your protests to the contrary

That part of the 14th Amendment was meant for the children of slaves. It never changed, but became to mean more than it was intended to.

 

[Smokey1]

That part of the 14th Amendment was meant for the children of slaves. It never changed, but became to mean more than it was intended to.

That is correct. It was added to the Constitution to ensure that all the slaves here were granted citizenship. It wasn't put there for the benefit of border jumpers but that is who it benefits now.

 

[This_person]

That is correct. It was added to the Constitution to ensure that all the slaves here were granted citizenship. It wasn't put there for the benefit of border jumpers but that is who it benefits now.

There's a lot of good points made on both sides. I personally agree that those points are valid and arguable. Personally, I think if you are born here you are a citizen, but that does absolutely zero to help any family stay here for any reason. Indeed, when they get deported they are certainly welcome to take you home. If they abandon you here, they have forfeited any and all rights to you or claims of being your family, by virtue of that abandonment.

The opinions on all sides of this are, in my view, equally valid, though. It comes down to opinion. Nothing more than opinion. I'm sure SCOTUS will be asked to render an opinion as well.