Ron DeSantis says he’ll end birthright citizenship as president

The 14th amendment makes statutory citizens out of people that were born here, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The intent was to grant citizenship to slaves through statute. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. How do you suppose anybody could be a citizen prior to 1868?

Like I say, it's not in the constitution. I am not a citizen of the United States. I'm a natural citizen.

 

Lol. You don’t know what the word born, means? It’s not irrelevant because of its age. That would make the entire constitution irrelevant.

I agree it should be changed, but it says what it says.

 

Oh? Is a kid that gets tossed over the river before the unbiblical cord is cut subject the jusrisdiction of the United States? If they were they would be deported.

 

Can you answer the question I asked, or are you just going to ignore that nobody was a citizen prior to 1868?

Are we quite sure you know what the word "and" means?

 

Yes. Anyone living here is subject to out laws, except for those with diplomatic immunity. They can shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not much can be done about it. Everyone else needs to follow the law. Well, except the Uber rich and powerful.

 

Take it up with SCOTUS. Your argument is with the amendment. SCOTUS agrees that people born here are citizens, even if born to immigrants.

 

No, a Guatemalan Nationals kid is subject to Guatemala

The kid is in the jusrisdiction. If the kid was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States they would be deported per our immigration laws.

 

So you don't believe in citizens prior to the 14th amendment which was ratified about a century after the United States became a county. I don't know how to help you with your particular problem.

 

The kid violated no laws. The mom did. You think a human in utero can make decisions about breaking the law?

 

Again, your issue is with SCOTUS. Take it up with them. I don’t always agree with SCOTUS, but I am required to accept their rulings as law.

 

I am telling you my friend that the pudding is delicious and better if you use your fingers.
Do you use a spoon to eat chicken wings or pizza?
No, of course you do not!

***
Lil Mike, you've officially joined Q with this one....

***
Ah, the impeccable brilliance of the "founding fathers" and their failure to define what it means to be a Citizen of the United States in the Constitution.
Not until 18680709 was the start of the seven year clock formalized, and even so it was done so with just a teeny bit of wiggle room for Qs to troll with.
Not quite enough to properly fish, nope, just a little trolling for snook...

 

This may or not surprise you, but I've no idea what you're talking about.

 

The difference between born in the US and not born here is pretty clear. And we do enforce our laws on foreign nationals. If the kid is born here, he's a US citizen. That's both the way the law reads and the way it's applied. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

 

No. If there was a law that says that I would think I could find it. But I'm not going to read you the whole constitution to prove a negative. If you can figure out how the constitution says citizenship was determined prior to the 14th Amendment, which was ratified about a century after the USA was formed, please point to it.

If you can't, maybe you need to reconsider some things.

 

The mom was a criminal the second she crossed the river. By law she should be deported. The kid is not our responsibility, we did not bring it into this world.

Why should the child become a citizen just because they were born on US soil? Is there some kind of magical phenomenon going on with genuine USA dirt that anybody born on it is loyal to it?

I just don't believe in magic dirt.

 

Because it’s literally in the constitution. 14th amendment, section I. SCOTUS agrees. Until SCOTUS changes its mind, no law can be created that violates this. That’s likely what’s happening, here. If a law gets passed, it will go to SCOTUS. It’s called legislation from the bench.

Im actually okay if it does get overturned, but I’m not going to pretend the word “born,” isn’t in the constitution like you claim. I’m okay with excluding illegal immigrant’s children not being citizens, up to a point. At some age, the child should be granted citizenship. There was a story some time ago, about a 30 something year old who was brought here illegally as a baby. He was being deported due to lack of papers. He didn’t even speak Spanish. That’s just cruel, and I don’t accept that.

 

Are you ignoring my question for the third time?

How was citizenship determined before the 14th amendment existed?

 

What difference does it make how they did it then? No one the answer would apply to is alive now. The 14th is how it works now, de facto and de jure. In order to change that you'd need to amend it.

 

The strongest opposing argument I've heard is that Constitution leaves it to Congress to determine what naturalization means and its process. And after the 14th Amendment was ratified, we still did not give birthright citizenship to Native Americans... which the Supreme Court upheld. They still had to follow the laws of the United States, but they weren't necessarily citizens at birth. So there is a precedent that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to everyone born within the United States. It took an act of Congress half a century later to give birthright citizenship benefits to all Native Americans.

That said, even if this could be done without an Amendment, I don't see how the Executive can do it via executive order.

 

Not a serious issue. Just as Republicans scoff, when Democrats talk of imposing term limits on Supreme Court Justices, there is no way to change the citizenship birthright "issue," enshrined in the 14th Amendment, without another Constitutional Amendment. These require 2/3 majorities, in both chambers of Congress, and then, ratification by 3/4ths of the states. But DeSantis is "vowing" to get it done, ay? What a joke.

 

For anyone truly interested, this is a fascinating read that explains the why about all the different aspects of the 14th, including the part where natives not bound by federal laws, were excluded.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2023/03/28/birthright-citizenship-supreme-court/

The court case that gave birthright citizenship to everyone, was based on a child of a Chinese immigrant who was denied citizenship. It was basically a guaranteed citizenship, regardless of race, since the children of white immigrants all had birthright citizenship.

That’s why the word BORN is in there.

Cheers.

 

We've already had a thread fairly recently that answers these objections and more.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/trump-proposes-to-end-anchor-babies.610916/

There is scarcely a need to rehash the exact same issue again, although if either of you can push the issue forward from where that thread ended, that might be interesting.

 

Are you insane? Of course it makes a difference.

The fourteenth amendment is not the basis for your citizenship- Not unless were a slave born here, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

There were obviously citizens before the 14th amendment. As a matter of fact the 14th amendment ain't the first use of the term "Citizen of the United States" used in the Constitution. First time that term is used is in article two section one-

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible for the office of president, .."

It does not take a Sherlock Holmes to deduce from the above quote that there are at least two kinds of citizens, natural born citizens, and citizens of the United States.

The founders were not naturally citizens, they were born subject to the crown. So they made themselves citizens though statute. "Of" the United States, as in by the power of the united states as opposed to a natural citizen. A natural citizen is obviously and naturally a citizen because there is no other country they could logically be considered to be a citizen of.

 

Yeah, that thread ignores previous SCOTUS rulings and ignored that the Constitution doesn’t use the word legal, wrt immigration status. It just says BORN.

Whatever. It’s headed to SCOTUS, at some point soon. It’s not nearly the slam dunk that some believe. It’s that pesky word born, that you all want to ignore. Well, it’s there. Pretend the word born is the phrase “shall not be infringed,” and perhaps you’ll get the aha moment.

 

And that makes zero difference in the context of the14th Amendment. People are now citizens by virtue of being born here. That's just the way it works. If you don't want it to work that wy, you'll have to change the law, in this case the Constitution. I'm all for it. I'll support the attempt. But the attempt will have to be made and be successful for citizenship to be conferred solely on the basis of parentage.