If Trump successfully closes the 14th Amendment loophole...

Do you mean the acts the Republicans jammed through over the filibusters of the Democrats??? Those acts???

 

You didn't disagree with my assertion.

 

True, that is most likely. However, the fact remains with that EO Trump is threatening the Constitution he is charged with enforcing. If Congress ignores the threat, that doesn't mean the threat doesn't exist.

All that is true if Trump signs such an EO. I don't think he has the balls. This is just another red herring, and he has created hundreds.

 

Perhaps that is true, but Trump can't do that. Only Congress with the states can change the Constitution.

The executive branch is charged with enforcing and protecting the Constitution, not interpret it. Only SCOTUS can do that.

 

Will this mean the next Democrat president can terminate the second amendment???

 

LOL take a look at your and your parents birth certs. an see it your parents or their parents are listed by citizenship standing.

Going to be interesting proving you are a real American by the new standards as our birth records are not set up to do that.

Yes indeed he will go down in history as a complete racist fool.

 

Yes. Those acts. Long time ago, back when the Republicans values were a little different.

 

Those Republicans today would be called SJW, Socialist Marxist Commie morons by the right.

 

there is no notation of citizenship status on a current birth certificate. there needs to be, hence the point of this thread.

easy enough. we just do what the rest of the entire modern world has been doing for decades...

what is racist about requiring a pregnant woman to be a CITIZEN to pop out a CITIZEN?

 

The alt left thinks "illegal immigrant" is a race.

 

seems about true.

 

Trump wants to re-interpret the Fourteenth Amendment.

Trump can't change the interpretation of the Constitution. Only SCOTUS can do that. The President is charged with enforcing and protecting the Constitution, not interpreting it.

I have said that a few times. No one has challenged that statement.

I believe this to be still another red herring. Trump has issued hundreds in the 20 months he has been in office. Apparently, he enjoys looking stupid. His wild speculations based on grade school thinking thirty years ago does draw attention, and attention is what he craves. His mindless birthright E.O. has served its purpose and he has forgotten about it.

The only ones talking about this issue is us. I just did an internet search. Trump has moved on to other wild conspiracy theories and an old one -- the caravan is invested with MS-13 and Middle East terrorists. Again, he just says it. He has not offered any proof.

 

Look — I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm no idiot either. I took a few moments to familiarize myself with the facts at hand and here's what I came up with:

1. The Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 4) gives Congress the authority to establish uniform laws about naturalization. So what is naturalization? It's the process by which a foreigner comes to have US citizenship. What is a foreigner? It is someone who is born in a country other than this one.

Conclusions:

1. The Constitution doesn't say that Congress can decide whether a person born on US soil is or is not a citizen. However, the SCOTUS will probably give a wide reading to this clause and permit Congress to do so.
2. Donald Trump definitely does NOT have unilateral authority to decide this matter. This is a matter that should be decided by the states (Senate) and by the people (House).

So my question is this:

A person is born on US soil and is the child of two undocumented immigrants. Let's say a Honduran father and a Colombian mother. Let's say one crossed the border illegally and the other is a visa overstayer -- one illegal the other quasi-legal. Honduras, as you may or may not know, awards citizenship to anyone born in Honduras. So, let's say that the US grabs the guy and says, "Sorry. You were born here, but you're not American. Good-bye." He gets shipped off to Honduras, but Honduras says, "Sorry. You weren't born in Honduras, so you're not Honduran" and deports the guy to the US. So, the US deports the guy to Colombia instead. But, Colombia awards citizenship to people born in Colombia AND who have at least one Colombian parent. So Colombia re-deports the guy to the US.

Is this the guy's new life? Round-robin deportation and everyone insisting that the guy has no citizenship anywhere of any type?

P.S. Donald Trump is not a particularly good president. I don't approve of presidents who raise taxes. I similarly disapprove of presidents who flout the Constitution.

 

Obviously not. You're welcome.

How exactly do you figure a visa overstayer is quasi-legal?

Not our problem.

So what's that got to do with Trump and 14A?

 

There was virtually no such thing as illegal immigration when the 14th was written. We basically had open borders. The 14th was, from the moment it was voted on, acknowledged as granting citizenship to the children of non-citizen immigrants. The 14th was always meant to be expansive with a very narrow definition of who was excluded. If you want more exclusions, you'll need another amendment. The "loophole" is a myth. The amendment is working as intended.

 

but the individual in question must be “subject the the jurisdiction.” individuals who are illegally present in the country do not meet that basic standard. thus, nor are their offspring.

it is offensive to common sense to state otherwise.

 

Yes, that is the current re-imagining being pushed by by the revisionists. The fact is that illegal immigrants are still subject to our jurisdiction -- they can be tried in our courts and are subject to our legal protections, which they can appeal to. It is offensive to intellectual integrity to play make-believe otherwise.

 

you are confusing criminal law with civil law. hopefully not intentionally.

 

You are trying to pretend that someone subject to our criminal jurisdiction is not subject to our jurisdiction. Hopefully not intentionally. The new definition of "jurisdiction" that the anti-citizen crowd has invented can't be applied to the original intent of the 14th amendment, which arose when we basically had open borders and when the exception explicitly made was for diplomats. You want more exceptions, then amend. Until then, you have nothing.

 

If Trump even tries to do this he will look like a fool when a Federal judge puts an immediate stay order on it and the entire SCOTUS 9 to 0 then void it.

He will again look as stupid as he is.

 

True, but it may mobilize his base even more if he tried such nonsense.

 

Sure they are, in the general sense that doesn't apply to the citizenship clause. So are foreign diplomats.

 

Trump's EO would strip his own son of citizenship.

 

Except SCOTUS has already ruled that the RKBA is individual, and unconnected with any formal or informal claims to be a member of any militia. And Federal Law defines the federal militia as all able bodied males between 17 and 45.

A week or two ago I would have agreed with the idea that ending "anchor babies" would have required a Constitutional Amendment. However, since DT brought the topic into the national consciousness, I have read multiple articles from legal minds much more brilliant than my own have convinced me otherwise. The verdict seems split over whether or not it can be done by EO or requires Congressional legislation, which seems unlikely if the House or Senate turn blue (after all, why turn away future (or even present) true blue votes), but I now seriously doubt it requires an Amendment.

And it SHOULD be done. Problem is the dems will fight it with the same voracity they fought the Kavanaugh nomination. Their very survival long term depends on illegal voters.

 

Trump is a US Citizen. Which makes his son one regardless of who his mother might be. It's a bloodright, not just a matter of whose soil someone might have been on when they popped out of their mother's uterus.