Trump Declares He Will End Birthright Citizenship

[johnwk2]

@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.

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]

@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]

@johnwk2

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

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

[Call_me_Ishmael]

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]

@Call_me_Ishmael

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.

It will never be heard by the supreme court…

[johnwk2]

@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.

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]

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]

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.

[Nemesis]

@Call_me_Ishmael

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.

The explosion from Trump and his cultists such as yourself would be a magnificent thing if this did reach the SC and Kavanuagh voted that children born in the US of illegal parents were citizens.

Ultimately no one knows how the SC would vote.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

Can I take that to the bank?
Or should I wait till “spaceships come down with dinosaurs in red capes”?

[johnwk2]

@Nemesis

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.

Well, that is exactly why President Trump needs to sign an Executive Order . . . it will actually force the issue before the Supreme Court in an expedited manner, and the question will finally be answered. Have we not learned that Fifth Column globalists like Paul Ryan, refuse to address the concern?

And I suspect with the preponderance of evidence tipping the scale to deny citizenship to children born to foreign nationals while on American soil, and particularly denying citizenship to children born to foreign national illegal entrants while on American soil, the existing magnet which now entices an invasion at our borders will be disabled, and thereby promote the general welfare of the United States.

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.

[Cynic]

@johnwk2

@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.

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

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 provide citizenship to children born to aliens while on American soil.

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

Cynic

During his presidency, Calvin Coolidge woke up in a hotel room to find a burglar going through his things. Coolidge struck up a conversation with the man and found out he was a student who needed money to pay for college. Coolidge asked the man to hand him his wallet and gave him the $32 that was in in there and told the student it was a loan. He then instructed the student to leave the way he came to avoid being caught by the Secret Service.

[Roxiebelle]

Good, I’m all for it and it needs to be backed up with legislation the END the madness of illegal aliens having their babies in the USA to gain citizenship.

[bluedogdem]

If a Democrat would have said this Republicans would have lost their collective ■■■■■

[johnwk2]

@Cynic

@johnwk2

@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.

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

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 provide citizenship to children born to aliens while on American soil.

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

Cynic

Why? Because the preponderance of evidence, some of which I provided above, unlike you is sufficient to conclude the 14th Amendment was designed to exclude from citizenship children born to aliens while on American soil. And, unlike our open border Fifth Column Global Governance Crowd, loyal patriotic Americans support and defend the rule of law,

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.

[Cynic]

So you confirm that you are not a patriotic or loyal citizen?

Cynic

The “S” in Harry S Truman doesn’t stand for anything; therefore, there is no period after his middle initial.

[sikofit]

@WuWei

Please stop stalking me. No means no.

Suck it up buttercup

[JayJay]

@TheRedComet

Rural areas. Not saying they are useless at their jobs. But the response time is far too long to wait.

If someone breaks in you’re ■■■■■■ if you don’t have the means to stop them.

How often are homes broken into where you live?

I’m a guns right advocate, mind you, but not because I’m worried about dangers that are unlikely to happen.

So my question is one of curiosity. Do break-ins happen pften enough that your concern over them is warranted?

[JayJay]

Loyal patriotic Americans are calling for the proper processes to address illegals having children in the US making the children legal citizens.

And that is to amendvthe Constitution.

[TheRedComet]

They’re not infrequent.

And where I live now is a more urban but it has one of the highest murder rates in the state.