Politics TRUMP SAYS HE PLANS TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TERMINATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
EL PRESIDENTE said:
I don't see the need for birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree that parentage rather than geography should determine citizenship. However, the Constitution is the Constitution. If someone wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, the amendment process needs to be followed.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I would tend to agree that parentage rather than geography should determine citizenship. However, the Constitution is the Constitution. If someone wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, the amendment process needs to be followed.
Click to expand...

I see what Trump doing as the first step in kicking this process off. Or he could just be trying to energize his base ahead of the midterms.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
I see what Trump doing as the first step in kicking this process off. Or he could just be trying to energize his base ahead of the midterms.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm gonna go with the latter. Time will tell, but he seems to be politicizing this whole caravan thing. Both sides are bad in they way they treat current events like this.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I would tend to agree that parentage rather than geography should determine citizenship. However, the Constitution is the Constitution. If someone wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, the amendment process needs to be followed.
Click to expand...

I always said that geography is not important for the voting process and the electoral process needs to be removed from the presidential elections as well, I am willing to bet the Mr. Trump would not be willing to do the same in this case as it does not serve his interests... but as you said, the constitution is the constitution.
 
barfo said:
I expect @MarAzul in particular will be very angry about this blatant attempt to ignore the constitution.

barfo
Click to expand...

And i have ocean front property in North Dakota for sale. Maybe i can convince marzy it would be a great place to move his boat to.
 
barfo said:
I expect @MarAzul in particular will be very angry about this blatant attempt to ignore the constitution.

barfo
Click to expand...

CupWizier said:
And i have ocean front property in North Dakota for sale. Maybe i can convince marzy it would be a great place to move his boat to.
Click to expand...

While not personal insults let's try to focus the discussion on the topic instead of calling out/baiting others into arguments. Not saying either of you have done anything wrong, I just want to avoid this turning into a shit show.
 
The first smart thing he has done. Why should the taxpayer support a child that came here to get a free ride. Many couples will come here with pregnant wife to take the US citizenship. I heard from a friend that France scratched out the right in 1976 and the UK in 1981. We are actually the country that allows this action. However, can they join the armed forces without a US birth right?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
While not personal insults let's try to focus the discussion on the topic instead of calling out/baiting others into arguments. Not saying either of you have done anything wrong, I just want to avoid this turning into a shit show.
Click to expand...

I have another piece of ocean front prperty in South Dakota. It's right next to a dog park
 
Didn't read the details, but these kinds of things hit home with my wife being Chinese and my kids US citizenship tied to me.

Interesting how China does it. My daughter was born in China and has US citizenship and a Chinese travel document, so essentially dual citizenship. When she turns 16 China will make her decide on US or Chinese citizenship, as they do not recognize dual citizenship. My son was born in the US and my wife has a green card (and second kid), because of this, China won't recognize him as Chinese at all, he can never claim it. Even if my wife leaves the US and returns to China to live. If she was only on a visa he could claim Chinese citizenship. It is quite strange.
 
stampedehero said:
Perhaps "transported by human vessel" may be more accurate.
Click to expand...

I guess we could tie this into the abortion debate by saying citizenship starts at conception.

barfo
 
I saw this last night and was waiting for a thread. The only way I could think of this working is arguing that the children aren't under our jurisdiction.

That would be quite a stretch but the Supreme Court could rule that way and there's nothing anyone could do about.

I know liberals love judges making laws...this should be fine with them.
 
barfo said:
I expect @MarAzul in particular will be very angry about this blatant attempt to ignore the constitution.

barfo
Click to expand...

Actually, I take it as, Trump is the first President to enforce the law correctly. The 14th amendment was written to codify that former slaves were residents of the US. This to put down the movement to send them back to Africa.

"Amendment XIV – Section 1. 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."

You should note that the former slaves, most of them born in the US were indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other country since it had been illegal to import slave for many years prior to them gaining freedom and the passing of this amendment.
I don't remember were it is exactly, perhaps Natural Law, that, No man is without a country. Thus the 14th amendment made it so.

Visitors to the country, legally or illegally, are subject to the jurisdiction of another nation, to this one only temporarily as a guest
and not at all as an illegal, that has already broken the law.

So the 14th amendment is finally interpreted correctly by Trump.

The same as we find that in the case of our own citizens born abroad. Like John McCain, a natural Born Citizen even though his place of birth was Panama. It is logical and consistent with how we enforce the law and with Natural Law as found in the
Law of Nations.
 
barfo said:
I guess we could tie this into the abortion debate by saying citizenship starts at conception.

barfo
Click to expand...

I had the same thought. If the fetus is the person and the woman is considered nothing more than a mobile incubator......how deep does this rabbit hole go?
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
I saw this last night and was waiting for a thread. The only way I could think of this working is arguing that the children aren't under our jurisdiction.

That would be quite a stretch but the Supreme Court could rule that way and there's nothing anyone could do about.

I know liberals love judges making laws...this should be fine with them.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it would be the correct rule and entirely fitting the original intent of the law.
 
Interesting. So it all comes down to the interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Are babies born on US soil to non-residents (or non-legal residents) necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If not, then the 14th doesn't technically apply to them.

Never thought of it that way, but there's logic behind the position.
 
Trump....

You sir... Are NOT an idiot.

You're "smaht".

You know exactly how to get your rabid racists out to vote.
 
MarAzul said:
Visitors to the country, legally or illegally, are subject to the jurisdiction of another nation, to this one only temporarily as a guest
and not at all as an illegal, that has already broken the law.

So the 14th amendment is finally interpreted correctly by Trump.
Click to expand...

A child born here is not a 'visitor', as they've not come from anywhere else. The jurisdiction phrase pretty obviously refers to the child, not the parents.

barfo
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Interesting. So it all comes down to the interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Are babies born on US soil to non-residents (or non-legal residents) necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If not, then the 14th doesn't technically apply to them.

Never thought of it that way, but there's logic behind the position.
Click to expand...
If we are war with let's say...Russia. Russian forces were on our soil and Russian women soldiers got pregnant and had babies while technically on US soil should the babies be US citizens?

I don't think the founding fathers would think so. Just like they probably wouldn't want people having machine guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top