Trump Declares He Will End Birthright Citizenship

[Apocalypto]

I wonder how Michelle “anchor baby” Malkin feels about all of this.

[BlueTex]

@Apocalypto

I wonder how Michelle “anchor baby” Malkin feels about all of this.

I’m worried about poor Barron… Mommy wasn’t a citizen when he was born…

[PizzaReverend]

@CaughtInTheMiddle

@rolltide

The left needs to put a real-deal liberal “Trump” in office next. I’m talking someone equally as unqualified, equally as stupid and equally as irresponsible and crass.

That President’s first order of business could be to sign an executive order rescinding the 2nd amendment.

You really wanna play this game? Karma baby, Karma!

I agree that the left need someone 10 times as nasty as Donald Trump. The right needs to get all the nasty stuff stuck right back in their face (like the president going after Rush and Fox HARD).

Then maybe they will understand you don’t give the keys to the country to a New York City con man cheating slime ball.

There’s always Avenatti.

[margaretms2]

@Nemesis

I cant wait to see all the so called conservatives on this forum who worship at the altar of Trump be critical of this move which clearly contradicts the constituion.

Oh thats right they wont be, they will either a) ignore this issue b) say its not an issue that concerns them !!! Or C) pivot and explain why Trump can do this and how the constituion actually supoorts this executive order.

It might be this afternoon before we hear anything as they need to get their talking points from Hannity, Limbaugh etc first.

There’s D, as well, which will be to find some dumb meta-/secondary angle from which to punch/blame/criticize liberals. That never fails.

[wonderingrover]

Well, so far, Trump has expressed a desire to:

1. Change the 1st amendment to allow him to restrict the press as an “enemy of the people.”
2. Change the 2nd and 4th amendments by “taking the guns first and asking questions later”
3. Change the 14th amendment guidelines regarding citizenship.

Am I missing anything?

[Blackwolf]

@Apocalypto

Suspend Habeas Corpus and end birthright citizenship, you nitwits sure know how to pick ‘em.

I’m sure it’s just locker room talk intended to send a thrill up the legs of Trumpistan’s faithful.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@Jamerican

Wondering if he would try to make it retroactive.
If so…good luck trying to deport folks born American soil and been here all their lives. Hell…I’m not going anywhere.

This is all a diversion to inflame people and get votes. Don’t fall for the Trump crap.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@Jezcoe

@rolltide

The left needs to put a real-deal liberal “Trump” in office next. I’m talking someone equally as unqualified, equally as stupid and equally as irresponsible and crass.

That President’s first order of business could be to sign an executive order rescinding the 2nd amendment.

You really wanna play this game? Karma baby, Karma!

Let’s not do that and say that we did.

It has to happen. You can’t fight the mafia with Peace symbols.

[johnwk2]

@johnwk2

You apparently do not know what our Constitution commands. If Trump, by Executive Order, started to enforce the privilege of citizenship as the text of the 14th Amendment commands, and was intended by those who framed and ratified the amendment, a child born to a foreign national while on American soil would not be considered a citizen of the United States.

The myth of birthright citizenship

We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths perpetrated concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.

In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

“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 why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares “and subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from citizenship “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“ ?

The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.(my emphasis) see : Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down

“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.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”

Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power–for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us–shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” …he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments 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 so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.

JWK

"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

@BlueTex

When exactly in 2006 did Melania get her citizenship?

Go find out. I certainly am not interested. But I am interested in enforcing the text of the 14th Amendment, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

The fact is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as found in the 14th Amendment, was intentionally designed to deny citizenship to a child born to a foreign national who enters our country and gives birth, unless the mother has been naturalized and takes our countries “Oath of Allegiance”. Doing so, makes that person “subject to the Jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Haven taken the above oath, one becomes subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Trump needs to consider how to start enforcing constitutionally authorized citizenship!

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"__ Justice Story_

[BlueTex]

Imagine the chaos this would bring… Trump signs this EO and the next president revokes the EO…

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@ImRightYoureWrong

@Bosun

Has POTUS hurt your fefes (feelings) again?

All behold the depths of Trumpism above. Like 13 year old bullies. Petty. Victims. No principles. They just want to watch the world burn.

They don’t necessarily want to watch the world burn. They want to watch their opponents burn.

These words by trump are calculated to get votes. He’s really, really good at this.

[NuffSaid]

He’s sitting in his high chair, eating his pudding, yelling at the top of his lungs about how Democrats want socialism.

[BlueTex]

@johnwk2

When exactly in 2006 did Melania get her citizenship?

Go find out. I certainly am not interested. But I am interested in enforcing the text of the 14th Amendment, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

The fact is, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as found in the 14th Amendment, was intentionally designed to deny citizenship to a child born to a foreign national who enters our country and gives birth, unless the mother has been naturalized and takes our countries “Oath of Allegiance”. Doing so, makes that person “subject to the Jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Already did… Melania took the oath on July 28, 2006… Barron Trump was born on March 20, 2006…

[WuWei]

@TommyLucchese

“Everything is about the 2nd Amendment.”

That is correct. You and I have had enough discussions for you to know better than that lie you posted, so I’m wondering why the personal attacks since Trump got elected.

Trump IS NOT going to abolish jus soli, the 14th Amendment or anything else in the Constitution anymore than Obama closed Gitmo or made healthcare affordable.

I would have thought you were past campaign rhetoric. Do you believe he does what he says?

[Apocalypto]

Melania will take one for the team!!

[NuffSaid]

Nope, sounds like a movement towards the same mentality and dictatorship that his lover, Kim Jong Un, has in North Korea.

[Cynic]

Time to deport poor Barron.

[PeterGriffin]

I wonder how President Trump got so good at tickling the lizard brain of racists? Hmmm.

[Call_me_Ishmael]

@Gravityspeak

The pendulum will swing. Trump is setting a terrible precedent for the next president. Just pray (I’m looking at you, Trump’s faithful) it’s someone who’s more measured and balanced than he is.

Like someone out to “fundamentally transform” the country?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

@PizzaReverend

@CaughtInTheMiddle

@rolltide

The left needs to put a real-deal liberal “Trump” in office next. I’m talking someone equally as unqualified, equally as stupid and equally as irresponsible and crass.

That President’s first order of business could be to sign an executive order rescinding the 2nd amendment.

You really wanna play this game? Karma baby, Karma!

I agree that the left need someone 10 times as nasty as Donald Trump. The right needs to get all the nasty stuff stuck right back in their face (like the president going after Rush and Fox HARD).

Then maybe they will understand you don’t give the keys to the country to a New York City con man cheating slime ball.

There’s always Avenatti.

Avenattiis is only equal to Trump.

The left needs somebody 10 times worse that is not politically correct at all. That person can go after Fox and Rush, from the presidential bully pulpit, way worse than Trump went after ABC & CBS. That new president can call them nazis and white supremacists with presidential tweets 24/7. A lesson must be learned from this talk radio presidential era.