Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

LOL, we can't even enforce the laws they already crap on ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's just SOSJAD, like firearm laws and DNC ghettos, NO TOUCH ZONES, illegals are future voters only difference is those area's will be barrios

 

Honestly I doubt they even considered it would one day be an issue.

Just like with guns

Just like with environmental regulations

Just like with slaves

I think the constitution was as good as a founding document as could be written at the time, one hundred years before electricity was in common use. I do not think it is some holy document that the creators of which had the ability to see the future.

We could move that 20-40 million out of poverty if we chose to do so. Food insecurity could be eliminated completely just by reducing food waste from grocery stores alone.

I don’t know what Europe has to do with the US constitution or what we are discussing. What do you mean?

As to why liberals and conservatives disagree, it’s because of a ton of factors combined with some major instances of cognitive bias and dissonance.

 

Honestly, this is one issue where I think they'd agree with the far left and with the libertarians . . . the idea of an "illegal immigrant" would have been completely, well, alien to our founding fathers. There was no such thing as illegal immigration when they set up the country. Coming here legally consisted of stepping across the border or stepping off of the vote . . . that was it.

 

Part of the reason these threads go on for pages and pages and never seem to go anywhere is because certain people, you in this particular instance, obfuscate and try to distract from the topic. The issue never was, "the children of immigrants."

It's about the children of illegals, people who have no legal right to be in the country. It's rather pointless to discuss a topic that is in it's essence, somewhat legalistic, with someone, you in this particular instance, who tries to obfuscate what we're actually talking about.

 

What, specifically, counted as "illegal immigrants" when the 14th Amendment was drafted? Be specific.

 

I agree that it's our practice, I disagree that this is the demand of the law or the 14th amendment.

'subject to the jurisdiction thereof” 'refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.'

'The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.'

'Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.'

“the distinction is between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

'this qualifying phrase excluded “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.'

'American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.'

In my opinion, and I fully understand that it is a minority view, if the 14th amend reads like most claim, there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act.

But there was as we see in Elks. 'Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally' or simply visiting, 'must be considered a U.S. citizen.'

'children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.'

'Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”'

'The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.'

'We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.'

https://www.heritage.org/immigratio...ndamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

I'd rather see our elected Legislatures handle than the President, even though it was a mere executive branch policy that started the current practice, the reason being, I don't want Presidents switching the policy back and forth. I'd rather have our practice be rooted in law, passed by our representative legislature.

 

It's pretty pointless to argue that point with someone who has a libertarian view of immigration (no person is illegal!). Are you telling me that there no such thing as an illegal immigrant, or that it only became a thing after a certain date?

 

I hope you're right but I believe it is more wishful thinking than anything else.

 

Much like the second amendment, the text is pretty clear

 

Yes it is. It takes more than just being born here to be a citizen.

 

Of course you don't. Because you've never read the Wong Kim Ark case.

 

Ok. I'll play.

Which part:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

I am looking at the text of the constitution

I am sure you are just itching for your stacked court to further destroy the peoples trust in the USSC by deleting a 125 year old precedent because you don’t like what the constitution says.

 

All true. As to your comment I highlighted in red, the Constitution is the law. It would be correct to have the Executive follow the Constitution, which is not being done now.

Giving citizenship to anchor babies is no different than allowing 6+ million illegals in the country. Both are unconstitutional.

 

Might cut a deal; no anchor babies, no EC.

 

1st condition "all persons born...in the United States" + 2nd condition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" = citizenship. Without the 2nd condition being satisfied, you don't get citizenship. The drafters and writers of the 14th Amendment made this clear, just as @Zorro pointed out above. This is not new, well maybe for you.

I love what the Constitution says. It says illegal anchor babies are illegals, not citizens.

And that 125 year old precedent, Wong Kim Ark, didn't give citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens. If you listened to Trump, he's actually following the Ark precedent.

Listen carefully to the end.

 

It’s an insult that anyone supports tRaitor tRump.

 

Thanks for your opinion but legal scholars as well as the Supreme Court of the United States disagree with your assessment.

Do our laws have jurisdiction over individuals in the US illegally? Yes or no?

I couldn’t care less what that twice impeached, adulterous, sharpie idiot says — much less to listen to a video of him saying it.

 

The only people in the USA not under our jurisdiction are diplomats. End of story.

 

Trump got a major smack down by EVERY Federal court that heard his BS election fraud cases. Including from the Supreme Court.

I guess Trump is looking for another major smackdown!!!

 

guess he is not planning to get any more wives at his elderly old age

 

The Constitution gives Congress the power to control naturalization, so, if Congress wanted convey birth citizenship, they could, but they never have.

 

One of the few times I agree with Trumpers, Following this precept they will soon deport themselves

 

You nimbly left off "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which as proven by the context and discussion at the time meant has allegiance to. The XIV amendment did not cover anchor babies.

 

Pretty sure he promised that in 2016.

Next he's going to promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, and you will cheer.