Birthright citizenship must stop

[MiddleGround]

That line simply means that kids born by ambassadors cannot be US citizens because those ambassadors are under the jurisdiction of their home country, not the US.

So.... who are all these 'refugees' under the jurisdiction of?

Nothing in that statement you quoted specifies 'ambassadors.'

 

[kwillia]

That line simply means that kids born by ambassadors cannot be US citizens because those ambassadors are under the jurisdiction of their home country, not the US.

but you do believe that is where the continuous debate of interpretation begins... yes?

 

[Gilligan]

"Simply means" is not a phrase that attaches well to discussions involving the interpretation of various phrases in the Constitution. Witness the number of supposed legal scholars and others that are dead certain that " A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means that the only reason we should be allowed to own and keep firearms is for established militia use.

 

[kwillia]

"Simply means" is not a phrase that attaches well to discussions involving the interpretation of various phrases in the Constitution.

Thus, my point. While someone may read it and clearly see it as inarguable, does not make it so. Debating and coming to a consensus is most certainly necessary.

 

[kwillia]

So.... who are all these 'refugees' under the jurisdiction of?

Nothing in that statement you quoted specifies 'ambassadors.'

And that was going to be my next post... if we are all of the consensus as stated by Chris, then we are all also in agreement that the illegally present parents, who ARE under the jurisdiction of our laws, can be deported.

 

[MiddleGround]

And that was going to be my next post... if we are all of the consensus as stated by Chris, then we are all also in agreement that the illegally present parents, who ARE under the jurisdiction of our laws, can be deported.

My opinion is what I have always stated. Give the immigrants a timeline to complete citizenship. If they do not, they AND their baby (whether born here or not) ALL get tossed. The parents made the decision to come here and not follow the process. They decided to drop a kid while here. It should all be on THEM to earn it!

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So.... who are all these 'refugees' under the jurisdiction of?

Nothing in that statement you quoted specifies 'ambassadors.'

This issue, including this line, was discussed in depth in the other thrad on this subject.

but you do believe that is where the continuous debate of interpretation begins... yes?

Personally, no.

 

[Gilligan]

We need approve an amendment to repeal the 14th...same process as the 21st repealing the 18th.

 

[This_person]

We need approve an amendment to repeal the 14th...same process as the 21st repealing the 18th.

Long before we do that, we need to repeal the 17th and put the states back into the conversation with respect to running the federal government.

 

[awpitt]

The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is nuts. Cross the border, have a kid, and the kid magically is a US citizen. This forms the basis of one of the most attractive reasons to illegally enter the USA. Few other countries allow this.

The misinterpretation of the clause in the 14th amendment centers around the words “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." I would argue that illegal immigrants fail the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” test and therefore their “born on US soil” kids should NOT be afforded US citizenship automatically.

This is possibly going to be a US Supreme Court case sooner or later. What might the “new” SC decide?

The illegal birth parents might not be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; however, once the baby pops out, that baby is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The only way to change this is by Constitutional Amendment or by modifying the law that provides for the exclusion of children born to foreign diplomats. One thing is clear..... birthright citizenship cannot be ended via an executive order. It is disturbing that our president is not smart enough to realize that.

 

[awpitt]

We need approve an amendment to repeal the 14th...same process as the 21st repealing the 18th.

Okay. Go ahead and get started with that if you feel that strongly about it.

 

[Gilligan]

Okay. Go ahead and get started with that if you feel that strongly about it.

I’m on it! Got to stop that nonsense. ;-)

 

[kenisgod1]

 

[Gilligan]

View attachment 125615

Good grief..that's beyond moronic. Trump (the father) was certainly a citizen and his wife was here legally.

Post irrelevant nonsense much?

 

[vraiblonde]

View attachment 125615

Pssst...his mother was a legal resident, and his dad was a legal citizen.

I actually saw a person claiming to be a lawyer in his Twitter profile say this: that Barron wouldn't be an American citizen. A LAWYER! One who would be expected to know the law! His profile had designations and looked legit, too, so I presumed him to be an actual lawyer and not some internet liar.

TDS makes people freaking crazy.

 

[vraiblonde]

It is disturbing that our president is not smart enough to realize that.

Do you really think Trump is stupid? Or that every single one of his battalion of lawyers and advisers is stupid?

I'm guessing Trump is going with an EO to push the subject. It will then go to the Supremes, who will rule on it. Except now Lindsey Graham says he's going to introduce a bill, so EO may be unnecessary.

 

[This_person]

The illegal birth parents might not be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; however, once the baby pops out, that baby is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. The only way to change this is by Constitutional Amendment or by modifying the law that provides for the exclusion of children born to foreign diplomats. One thing is clear..... birthright citizenship cannot be ended via an executive order. It is disturbing that our president is not smart enough to realize that.

This is a great opinion to have, but it is only an opinion and not a fact.

For example, if two Japanese students overstay their visa and are therefore here illegally, and they have a child here, and that child needs a passport to get back to Japan.....is it reasonable for that child to get a Japanese passport, or must it get a United States passport?

 

[SamSpade]

The illegal birth parents might not be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; however, once the baby pops out, that baby is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Why ? Because it's now a citizen? And it's a citizen because - it's subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Kind of a circular argument - an argument whose premise depends on the conclusion.

There is no intelligent reason to include that clause in the amendment if your argument is correct.