Trump Declares He Will End Birthright Citizenship

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@TheRedComet

So what’s the solution?

There is no solution.

[adroit]

@zantax

@Calvin_Reagan

@zantax

No, that isn’t what the fourteenth says.

Actually it does. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States. That’s what it said. Pretty clear cut. You want to change that law or clarify it, do it through congress via constitutional amendment.

No, you are leaving out something, the part that says “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

We’ve tried and executed illegal immigrants. You don’t get more subject to our jurisdiction than that. And as discussed in the debates at the time, only three exceptions existed:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian lands
3. occupying forces

Illegal immigrants don’t fall under any of those exceptions.

[dubarry20833]

Fake news and the enemy of America.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Here’s what Donald Trump asks his staff each morning…

• What else can I say to get my base massively emotional?
• What else can I say to make people mad enough to fight for me?
• Can someone read the highlighted sections of my Hitler book to me again?

[WuWei]

@BlueTex

And yet no challenges to birthright citizenship in over 100 years… Perhaps they consider it settled…

And perhaps something changed:

Yale Study Finds Twice as Many Undocumented Immigrants as Previous Estimates

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@dubarry20833

Fake news and the enemy of America.

Yes, the next democratic president will go after Fox and Rush and try to bankrupt them. Put them out of business using government. Bury them under the rubble of legislation and EOs.

[WuWei]

@adroit

We’ve tried and executed illegal immigrants. You don’t get more subject to our jurisdiction than that. And as discussed in the debates at the time, only three exceptions existed:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian lands
3. occupying forces

Illegal immigrants don’t fall under any of those exceptions.

Excellent point.

[Zander]

@WuWei

@zantax

No, you are leaving out something, the part that says “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

You’re hanging your hat on a bad hook.

Actually, the hook doesn’t even exist. He just taped one to the wall in about 5 minutes and it already fell down.

[WuWei]

@Zander

Actually, the hook doesn’t even exist. He just taped one to the wall in about 5 minutes and it already fell down.

Continued reading changed my mind. I’ll wait.

[BlueTex]

@WuWei

And perhaps something changed:

Yale Insights – 21 Sep 18

Yale Study Finds Twice as Many Undocumented Immigrants as Previous Estimates

Immigration is the focus of fierce political and policy debate in the United States. Among the most contentious issues is how the country should address undocumented immigrants. Like a tornado that won’t dissipate, arguments have spun around and…

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

[dubarry20833]

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

[WuWei]

@BlueTex

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

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]

@WuWei

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

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

[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:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian land
3. 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.

[WuWei]

@BlueTex

@WuWei

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

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

100% agreed. No work arounds.

[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)

[dubarry20833]

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

[adroit]

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]

@Call_me_Ishmael

But the precedent is set now. It’s out of my hands.

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

[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:

1. foreign diplomats
2. Indians on Indian land
3. 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.