Trump Declares He Will End Birthright Citizenship

WuWei · October 31, 2018, 12:25pm

Continued reading changed my mind. I’ll wait.

BlueTex · October 31, 2018, 12:29pm

Interesting philosophy… So the constitution can be changed by circumstances? For instance, the development of high power, high capacity firearms…

dubarry20833 · October 31, 2018, 12:30pm

Yes, because that person is just going to be telling like it is.

WuWei · October 31, 2018, 12:32pm

No, the need for amending the Constitution may come from circumstance.

“High power” doesn’t mean anything.

You want to try to change the Bill of Rights through amendment, be my guest.

BlueTex · October 31, 2018, 12:34pm

Agreed… Amending the constitution is the appropriate way to change it… not executive order…

johnwk2 · October 31, 2018, 12:34pm

johnwk2:

adroit:

The original intent, as explicitly discussed by the people who wrote and passed the 14th, was to provide citizenship to every person born in the US, except for three cases:

foreign diplomats

Indians on Indian land

occupying forces

.Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion. The fact is, TRUMBULL, who was in attendance during the framing of the 14th Amendment would disagree with you. He states:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance

JWK

All you have done is post your personal opinions. The irrefutable fact is, the preponderance of evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, and, from what our Supreme Court has already stated with regard to citizenship being bestowed upon children born to foreign nationals while on American soil, is sufficient to conclude the 14th Amendment was designed to exclude from citizenship children born to aliens while on American soil.

Why on earth would any patriotic, loyal American citizen argue differently? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into that country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

WuWei · October 31, 2018, 12:35pm

100% agreed. No work arounds.

BlueTex · October 31, 2018, 12:36pm

What’s your take on this snippet from INS v. Rios-Pineda?

Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

dubarry20833 · October 31, 2018, 12:38pm

Everyone agrees. Even Trump. He’s just feeding his hate filled deplorable a snack.

adroit · October 31, 2018, 12:39pm

Brah, I posted a quote from trumbull explicitly supporting citizenship being granted to immigrants who were not naturalized. That’s not unsubstantiated opinion. That’s a wrecking ball through your entire argument.

QED.

mobulis · October 31, 2018, 12:41pm

So are you not ok with trump doing it or are you a hypocrite?

mobulis · October 31, 2018, 12:43pm

johnwk2:

johnwk2:

adroit:

The original intent, as explicitly discussed by the people who wrote and passed the 14th, was to provide citizenship to every person born in the US, except for three cases:

foreign diplomats

Indians on Indian land

occupying forces

.Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion. The fact is, TRUMBULL, who was in attendance during the framing of the 14th Amendment would disagree with you. He states:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance

JWK

adroit:

I already dismantled your arguments. Trumbull was quite explicitly in favor of children born in the US to UNNATURALIZED immigrant parents receiving citizenship.

QED.

All you have done is post your personal opinions. The irrefutable fact is, the preponderance of evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, and, from what our Supreme Court has already stated with regard to citizenship being bestowed upon children born to foreign nationals while on American soil, is sufficient to conclude the 14th Amendment was designed to exclude from citizenship children born to aliens while on American soil.

Why on earth would any patriotic, loyal American citizen argue differently? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into that country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Because they understand what the 14th means.

johnwk2 · October 31, 2018, 12:49pm

You seem to forget our current situation is set by policy. We no longer have a Global Governance Crowd in charge. And that means, policy can be changed via a pen and phone.

You guys need a civics 101 class.

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

johnwk2 · October 31, 2018, 12:53pm

BlueTex:

johnwk2:

All you have done is post your personal opinions. The irrefutable fact is, the preponderance of evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, and, from what our Supreme Court has already stated with regard to citizenship being bestowed upon children born to foreign nationals while on American soil, is sufficient to conclude the 14th Amendment was designed to exclude from citizenship children born to aliens while on American soil.

Why on earth would any patriotic, loyal American citizen argue differently? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

JWK

What’s your take on this snippet from INS v. Rios-Pineda?

Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

INS v. Rios-Pineda :: 471 U.S. 444 (1985) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

There is no applicable take!

The court was not addressing if citizenship is bestowed upon a child born to an illegal alien while on America soil.

JWK

BlueTex · October 31, 2018, 12:54pm

It’s almost like there was no controversy… Good luck in court!

Call_me_Ishmael · October 31, 2018, 12:55pm

I was referring to the issue of the tax. Obama stated it was no tax. The SCOTUS said… it was a tax. So you see that a change in the meaning of words is all that it takes to make an otherwise unconstitutional law constitutional. Kavanaugh will have a beer party with his buddies and after they get all the girls drunk they will figure out how to make Trump’s EO constitutional.

BlueTex · October 31, 2018, 12:57pm

It will never be heard by the supreme court…

johnwk2 · October 31, 2018, 12:59pm

mobulis:

johnwk2:

johnwk2:

adroit:

The original intent, as explicitly discussed by the people who wrote and passed the 14th, was to provide citizenship to every person born in the US, except for three cases:

foreign diplomats

Indians on Indian land

occupying forces

.Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion. The fact is, TRUMBULL, who was in attendance during the framing of the 14th Amendment would disagree with you. He states:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment’s first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance

JWK

adroit:

I already dismantled your arguments. Trumbull was quite explicitly in favor of children born in the US to UNNATURALIZED immigrant parents receiving citizenship.

QED.

All you have done is post your personal opinions. The irrefutable fact is, the preponderance of evidence from the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the 14th Amendment, and, from what our Supreme Court has already stated with regard to citizenship being bestowed upon children born to foreign nationals while on American soil, is sufficient to conclude the 14th Amendment was designed to exclude from citizenship children born to aliens while on American soil.

Why on earth would any patriotic, loyal American citizen argue differently? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into that country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.

Because they understand what the 14th means.

Well, I dare say, we must then have an awful lot of unpatriotic and disloyal citizens posting in the thread because not one poster has been able to demonstrate the 14th Amendment was intended to grant citizenship to children born to illegal entrants while on American soil.

JWK

dantes · October 31, 2018, 1:09pm

What Obama says is not on trial. The court only decides on what the law says. The law says it was a tax.

You framed the issue incorrectly which resulted in an incorrect conclusion. A little research would have prevented this error.

Nemesis · October 31, 2018, 1:10pm

I actually doubt Trump will sign an EO. He is spouting off to help the elections next week.

If he does it will be immediately challenged, suspended and ultimately make its way to the SC. We can argue and pontificate all we like but at the end of the day it will be the SC that decides this.

If Congress wants to amend the constitution to clarify this one way or another then follow the established method for doing so.