Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

I have to laugh at such naive type thoughts......what power did FDR have to relocate the West Coast Japanese?

What power did Linclon have to end Habeus Corpus?

What power does Obama have to issue executive actions?

Bottom Line: The executive branch has the ability and the power to end this stupid,stupid policy of birthright citizenship anytime it chooses.

If he wants to be nice he will get congress to do it....but if required Trump will do it himself....National Security demands it and the majority of the electorate wants it to be ended as well....let the people rule...that is the American Way.

 

The Impact of Birthright Citizenship

Between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States every year. Put another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal immigrant mother.2 All of these children are considered by the executive branch of the U.S. government to be U.S. citizens who enjoy the same rights and are entitled to the same benefits as the children of U.S. citizens.

The population of U.S.-born children with illegal alien parents has expanded rapidly in recent years from 2.3 million in 2003 to 4 million in 2008; since these figures do not include children who are 18 years of age or older nor those who are married, the actual figure is somewhat larger.

The two citizenship benefits that have drawn the most attention in the birthright citizenship debate are, first, food assistance and other welfare benefits to which a family of illegal aliens would not otherwise have access, and second, the ability of the child when he grows up to legalize his parents, and also to bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. The sponsored spouse can, in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can, in turn, sponsor their own foreign-born spouses, and so on, generating a virtually never-ending and always-expanding migration chain.

Because having a child on U.S. soil can cement an immigrant’s presence in the United States, provide access to welfare benefits, and ultimately initiate chain migration of the child’s extended family and in-laws, children born to illegal aliens and legal temporary visitors are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies.” These benefits have contributed to the growth of a “birth tourism” industry.

The voices calling for a change to the current application of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment are quite diverse and are not limited to activists and policymakers. The influential Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner held in a recent court decision that the policy of granting automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal and temporary aliens is one that “Congress should rethink” and that the United States “should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.

http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship

 

Lol, I gave you 2 Supreme Court rulings showing you that's what it means. You keep spamming right wing nut blogs which hold no legal weight.

 

We live in Revolutionary times......and the Trump Revolution no doubt will come down hard on the politically correct liberals and republicans whose fallacious policies have done tremendous damage to America...so it is entirely understandable that you are scared.

 

None. It was an illegal act.

None. It was an illegal act.

The same power every president has to issue executive orders.

Presidents have no such power. The only way to supercede an amendment is with another one.

Trump has no hope of being the nominee, let alone president.

 

And the constitution is but declaratory of existing law. I'm not sure why you disagree with a SC Chief Justice.

And all I'm saying is that the SC Chief Justice says the 14th is merely declaratory of existing law.

Without one you are only assumed to be a citizen.

The VWP has no quotas. There are no restrictions on attending funerals out-side the US.

So what. There have always been laws and requirements.

 

Says the person resorting to ad hominem attacks.

And if they had meant to exclude more people, that could have just as easily been accomplished with additional language. And has already been quoted, the authors did explain what they meant by "under the jurisdiction." The anti-immigration crowd just chooses to ignore it because it contradicts their word games. But you are right. We are done here. Given you continued reliance on personal attacks, you and I especially so. To the ignore list.

 

There is the very good possibility that it is both, which is why I never denied it. All I said was that it is the law. If it is also declaratory of existing law, fine. I'm a little tired of this distraction.

This entire conversation started when you said that we would just need to amend the law, not the Constitution, and I responded by saying that the Constitution is the law of the land.

According to your own personal view of the law and no actual established policy or law.

The VWP is a temporary travel waiver for visits lasting less than 90 days. It has nothing to do with anything I was discussing.

There are restrictions on visa holders travelling outside the U.S. for any purpose, including funerals. Talk to anyone who has actually had one.

So what. There have always been laws and requirements.[/QUOTE]

 

Whites were before 1866, after it was any race. You see, you didn't catch any part where Justice Gray stated

because you have never read the WKA opinion. Fullers dissent even states it within the very first few paragraphs from your link.

The 14th can not discriminate due to race. That doesn't mean it can not be limited by class of person.

Justice Gray stated it in his closing paragraph as a reason as to why he received citizenship at birth.

 

Obviously FDR had the power...he exercised it...the Japanese were relocated.

Likewise Lincoln had the power to do what he did......


Do not forget all of obama's executive actions.

bottom line you are in denial of reality.....the Trump momentum continues to grow.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwivnYvPg9bHAhUF1B4KHcd1AB0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fblogs%2Fpundits-blog%2Fimmigration%2F251632-how-trump-could-change-birthright-citizenship&usg=AFQjCNFcoSujTH1CjQBndu2b24mkZyLd1g&sig2=FwGO9O69haBQtJfzru3-Zw

 

You really think the only thing the SSS is used for is for the registration of the draft?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
Failing to register also denies the ability to obtain a federal job, and can deny an immigrant the ability to naturalize. It isn't just for the draft (the draft is its main purpose). Certain persons are exempt. Some persons simply can not be conscripted, yet they too must register. Jesus, I'm debating with someone who doesn't even know basic English comprehension.

 

Illegally.

No, he didn't have the power.

Which is an actual presidential power.

By proving you wrong? Lol, ok

- - - Updated - - -

He was noting they were domiciled. His legal basis for his ruling was English common law.

 

Please tell me you aren't saying that a Supreme Court Justice doesn't know what he is talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

It may or it may not. Right now it is but assumed to depending on the admins policy.

 

Natioanl Security 'Trumps' the Constitution

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/Files/Documents/LessonPlans/Korematsulesson_new.pdf

 

Supreme Court precedents aren't assumptions.

 

It has to do with the parents status, without the status of the parent, the child would not be born a citizen. England required "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King or an alien in amity (which was via treaty between to nations - England and ?). And as Gray states about WKA parents

Why does Gray point out his parents status?

 

Yea, I still say what we are all REALLY debating is the future of the Democrat Party. Those who believe in the traditionally foundation of capitalism and individual freedom don't vote for the Democrats. This is well known. Dem Party Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz can't tell difference between Democrats and socialists. Can anyone?

http://www.examiner.com/article/deb...l-difference-between-democrats-and-socialists

Democrats NEED the immigrant vote, and non citizens aren't SUPPOSED to vote...

It's all really that simple...

 

Nothing trumps the constitution. It says so right in the constitution.

 

Again you are not dealing with reality>>>>>http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/transnational/vol21/pines.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/04/fourth-branch-rise-power-national-security-state

Most Presidents ignore the constitution>>>>Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course. Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract, allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.

All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122523872418278233

 

Nope. The only consideration is whether they are diplomats or invading army.

And the only way they wouldn't be in amity is with a hostile nation. The individuals status is irrelevant unless diplomat or invading army.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing trumps it, it says so right in the constitution.

 

"The people who wrote the Constitution lived in a small rural country, huddled along the Eastern Seaboard — a large part of which was financed by slave labor. ... Many of them believed that it was OK to own other human beings. Almost all of them believed that women should have no role in public affairs. Almost all of them believed people ... without property have no role in public affairs. Why on earth would anybody think that their decisions ought to bind us now?"

As Bush said the constitution is just a piece of paper.....it is now irrelevant and should be thrown out aka..........http://www.npr.org/2013/01/03/168549290/the-constitution-just-a-poetic-piece-of-parchment

 

So if we change the law, the 14th isn't amended since it is merely declaratory of existing law. Is the second amendment amended when laws are passed limiting who can posses a weapon (felons can not even if they are US citizens) or what weapons can be restricted?

According to federal law. A US Passport stating you are a citizen is positive proof of being a citizen.

All one has to do is get a waiver form and fill it out, they receive the waiver back almost immediately. My wife has actually had one.

 

For the reasons above, he was born a citizen to parents who were at the time of his birth have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States......Um. NO, he wasn't just "noting" it.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is you don't understand what Supreme Court precedent is.

 

Nope, those are only 2 recognized exceptions from England.

English law required the parents to be their in ligealty or amity (treaty between 2 nations).

I could swear Article 6 says

If the 2nd amendment can be limited after all it states "shall not be infringed", and the 14th simply can not be limited by race, why cant the 14th be limited by class?

 

How National Security Trumps the Constitution and yes birthright citizenship is a matter of National Security....and dealing with it will be the first thing Trump does...you can count on it.

http://www.voicesofliberty.com/video/roots-of-the-national-security-state-the-libertarian-angle/

The National Security Act>>>>https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1280