Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Democrats, you know, the same racist pigs that ushered in slavery and then went to war trying to keep

 

Anchor babies of illegal aliens has never been legal. Never. It has never been tested. And that's the whole point Trump is making. If he wins (for a third time) and does what he says....which he's the only President in my lifetime that kept his promises....then we'll see how the Supreme Court rules. But I honestly doubt Barrett has the stones to rule correctly.....especially after the lefty mobs threaten all the justices with their looney antics.

 

The children of illegal aliens who are born in the US have always been legal. Always. yes, this has gone to court before. Trump has a long history of losing is brain farts in court and he will do so again. But this is how he gets thoughtless anti-immigration folks to vote or him.

 

What's your idea of a militia?

You're gonna have a lot of rewrites to match your inaccurate perception

 

They have one choice, take their kid and return to their county of origin, where the kid has citizenship. Like for example Mexico. Any anchor baby of illegal Mexican aliens are Mexican citizens by birth BECAUSE OF THEIR JURISDICTIONAL CONNECTION. Mexican citizens are subject to Mexico's jurisdiction, wherever they reside.

 

If Trump wants to he can stop children from being able to sponsor immigration status for their parents. But he has no authority to stop anyone born in the United States from receiving citizenship. Every single federal court will give him a massive SmackDown. Even judges that he has nominated.

 

US law says you are full of **** and that the kids born here are US citizens by birth. I'm sorry our Constitution upsets you.

 

That is false. If a tourist commits a crime in the USA he goes to trial in American courts and goes to prison in our prison.

 

You forgot this part: 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. You're claiming that if a pregnant female is part of an invasion force, if she delivers on US soil that she has an anchor baby.

 

Which you guys pretend means something that it doesn't. Ever since the 14th Amendment passed, a kid born on this soil, unless they were the child of a foreign dignitary, was a citizen by birth. Period.

 

Persons in US Territory are under our jurisdiction. If they commit a crime here they go before an American jury and an American prison.

 

Wow you and I agree with something. All these lazy people in Red state needs to get off their a$$ and go to work so people like me from Blue State don’t have to send our hard earn money to Red state for people who lives in Welfare system and vote republican. I am with you on that.

Now speaking of 27% unemployment rate, where did you get that number, Russian State TV? Today USA has over 10 million open jobs and not enough people to work. USA needs average 3 million immigrants per year to fill all the open jobs.

 

Illegal entry is a crime, do you think Mexico will stand by while we migrate to their country without passports/papers or registering. Hell I could live like a King on a pristine beach IF that were the case, but its not ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Reform Welfare, and you will get your wish

 

Your beloved government. The labor participation rate is about 63% and you seem to have a problem with arithmetic? You ever wonder about those other 37%?

 

It Trump was smart he would instead propose a new rule that foreigners who give birth to children in the USA cannot apply for special status to stay in the USA. But instead Trump is blowing the racist dog whistle to rev up his racist white base.

 

I'm all for getting rid of anchor babies but you can't do it with an executive order. In fact, I don't think you can even do it with supermajorities in the House and Senate and the president on your side.

 

Well we got anchor babies with a bastardized ruling from the Supreme Court 125 years ago, it seems we can get that fixed just as they did with Roe v Wade.

This **** isn't difficult.

Music to my ears:

 

That's because the baby of a foreign dignitary is subject to the jurisdiction of the nation their parents are from. It is our practice but I don't believe that the Constitution requires it. The current controlling SCOTUS precedent, I believe, supports your view.

 

The key is the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The Framers did not envision, nor did they intend to grant the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment to every person that just so happens to either pop out of a womb, or put their own two feet on the continent. That was created after the fact.(see, the other posts explaining this.)

Brennan's ruling is against the constitutional premise under the times the 14th Amendment was created. The wording 'jurisdiction' is prominent here and important.

 

Our current Constitution requires it. And our country has been open borders for most of its history.

 

That's exactly what they intended. They were told at this time that this would mean that the children of immigrants would be citizens . . . and they approved it anyway.

 

I wouldn't count my chickens. It took like 50 years to overturn Roe. If Trump issues an executive order, it will be shot down fast, even by this court. An EO is only Trump trying to conn you out of your vote, and I'm on the right, not the left and I'm not a TDS'r.

 

Bolded by me in an edit, to prove a point. The 14th was indeed to clarify and confirm citizenship, but unfortunately this full text that you created, was not what ended up in the amendment. Would I be for an amendment process? Sure, but Congress can scarcely pass a debt ceiling bill, let alone actually amend the constitution to fix a century long problem against US National security interests.

 

Yeah, that phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is the second condition that must be met in order to obtain citizenship by birth. Our friends on the left and the uninformed on the right ignore it.

Lefty logic: If someone buys a lottery ticket, they automatically win the lottery. Never mind the part about also having the winning numbers.