EVENKEEL Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said: This isn't even an issue. It requires a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision overturning precedent. Regardless, Trump has no power over these governmental processes and this he is just drumming up his anti-immigration base. It sure gives the Anti-Trumpsters a reason to post and beat their drums. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordpeps Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 47 minutes ago, mikebike said: It would seem to me that if you can prosecute illegals for crimes and tax them then they ARE subject to the jurisdiction. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. That line can definitely be interpreted as an illegal being subject to jurisdiction of US laws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzannegoh Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said: This isn't even an issue. It requires a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision overturning precedent. Regardless, Trump has no power over these governmental processes and this he is just drumming up his anti-immigration base. Trump can't change it with an executive order but whether or not birth right citizenship is appropriate is a legitimate issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 minutes ago, suzannegoh said: Trump can't change it with an executive order but whether or not birth right citizenship is appropriate is a legitimate issue. What do you mean by "appropriate"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Steve King - (R) IA is a big proponent of this, I mean when he's not in Austria cuddling up to the far-right, or paying his family salaries from campaign contributions, or tweeting support for White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis, much to the chagrin of Intel, Land-o-Lakes and Purina. https://steveking.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/king-s-effort-to-end-birthright-citizenship-for-illegals-advanced-by Would be interesting to hear the details? Would there be amnesty for those with such citizenship? Or would Ivanka, Eric and DJTJ be forced to return to Canada, Austria or the Czech Republic? Would Native Americans (originally excluded by the 14th Amendment I think), and African-American descendants of slaves, be subject to deportation? This seems like a bit of the reality-TV showmanship, teasing next week's episode in hopes of increasing the "ratings"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FitnessHealthTravel Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Just get it done already! Take is cheap and it is long overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
car720 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 4 hours ago, EVENKEEL said: Chinese flock to USA to give birth to U.S. citizens https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/01/china-usa. You have to be able to see both sides. Is it fair? how many go to America and make babies each year? Australia is currently receiving over 150,000 immigrants each year. Does anyone think that 10 or 100 babies more are going to make any great difference. This is a mountain out of a mole hill and scare mongering at least. Reds under the bed. Where is McCarthy these days? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzannegoh Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, bristolboy said: What do you mean by "appropriate"? Whether it's good policy. European countries don't offer birth right citizenship despite having the most just form of government in the history of mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebike Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, suzannegoh said: European countries don't offer birth right citizenship despite having the most just form of government in the history of mankind. You do understand why the map of birthright citizenship looks like this, right? Hint... European countries were not built via immigration. "Just form of government" has nothing to do with it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 26 minutes ago, suzannegoh said: European countries don't offer birth right citizenship despite having the most just form of government in the history of mankind. Do any European countries offer birth-right citizenship for countries which they previously colonized? I honestly do not know, or am even sure it's relevant to the topic at hand. I think I read that some ~40 countries might offer unrestricted jus soli, while another ~ 25 offer restricted or partial jus soli, so maybe it's not altogether bat-sh*t crazy? Didn't Thailand even offer this prior to 1972? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzannegoh Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 You do understand why the map of birthright citizenship looks like this, right? Hint... European countries were not built via immigration. "Just form of government" has nothing to do with it. No, you are wrong about that. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are the reason that birthright citizenship is an issue now but its not the original reason that it was put in the Constitution. The reason that birthright citizenship came about in the US was so that former slaves would have citizenship. By now there are no more former slaves in either the US or Europe, but there are (non-citizen) immigrants and refugees in both places who give birth. But somehow it would be immoral for the US to deny citizenship to the children of non-citizens but enlightened for EU countries to do the same. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebike Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 minute ago, suzannegoh said: No, you are wrong about that. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are the reason that birthright citizenship is an issue now but its not the original reason that it was put in the Constitution. The reason that birthright citizenship came about in the US was so that former slaves would have citizenship. By now there are no more former slaves in either the US or Europe, but there are (non-citizen) immigrants and refugees in both places who give birth. But somehow it would be immoral for the US to deny citizenship to the children of non-citizens but enlightened for EU countries to do the same. How can I be wrong about something I didn't say? You are correct about the genesis of BRC in the USA. But there was no need to keep the policy in place for around 150 years other than nation-building. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, suzannegoh said: No, you are wrong about that. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are the reason that birthright citizenship is an issue now but its not the original reason that it was put in the Constitution. The reason that birthright citizenship came about in the US was so that former slaves would have citizenship. By now there are no more former slaves in either the US or Europe, but there are (non-citizen) immigrants and refugees in both places who give birth. But somehow it would be immoral for the US to deny citizenship to the children of non-citizens but enlightened for EU countries to do the same. It's true about the slave part but the rest of your characterization is provably false. All you have to do is go back and see the discussion at the time. The "jurisdiction thereof" clause was put in so as to specifically exclude the children of diplomats accredited to the USA. Also, to deal with the vexed question of native americans who had treaties with the USA. It would have been easy and simple enough to make the clause apply only to slaves had the creators of the amendment wanted to. Even Michael Anton had to insert an unjustified [or] into a quote of one of the creators of the 14 amendment in order to justify his dishonest interpretation of it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becker Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said: It sure gives the Anti-Trumpsters a reason to post and beat their drums. He gives us reasons for that on an almost daily basis so that's not something new. It has to be said though that he's been fairly quiet today. I've seen little of the usual verbal vomiting which leads me to believe he's out playing golf again at one of his golf resorts. That's your tax dollars at work filling the pockets of the orange one. Or maybe his bone spur condition is acting up and he's confined to bed, poor thing!! Edited October 31, 2018 by Becker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Mr Trump is using 'foreigners' as the bogeyman to cement his hold on the Presidency and the US Congress. He has portrayed foreigners and illegal aliens as taking jobs away from Americans; blaming them for violent crimes and drug problems. It's rather an interesting concept- other countries who have elections do the same thing. Not mentioning any names, of course. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tchooptip Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 5 hours ago, 55Jay said: Well, Trump's timing and gong banging about the border, and now this..... yeah, it's got ulterior motives. This is nothing new though, he's just more obvious and clumsy about it that previous politician presidents. MSM is leading articles, "With midterms elections only 40 30 10 2 1 week away, President Trump is _____________________." They are almost as ridiculous as he is. On the other hand, he has been banging this gong since the campaign, so it's not like these topics are new. Some would say he's following through. Whether you like them, or not, is a different matter. Personally, I've got no problem with an effort to end the anchor baby welcome mat. I would also de-couple it from the US Constitution going forward. Make it a matter of government policy that can be turned on and off as necessary. The US needs immigrants. Yes. With human population on the rise and on the move, the US also needs to be more selective with its Immigration policies. It can afford to be. It has every right to be. Just like any other country can determine its own path without necessarily giving a <deleted> if foreigners are unhappy about it. I was born in London with both parents French and I have a British passport! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzannegoh Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, Tchooptip said: I was born in London with both parents French and I have a British passport! How old are you? The UK changed its citizenship requirements in 1981. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Thai Life Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) The USA is not alone in ending or seeking to end "birthright citizenship", I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, To stop birth tourism, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have a modified jus soli, granting citizenship by birth only when at least one parent is a citizen of the country or a legal permanent resident. The issue of whether the US president has the power to do this by presidential decree (he doesn't) is just Trump doing what he does, and the alt-right and alt-left loving it. Edited October 31, 2018 by My Thai Life 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostlink Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Senator Jacob Howard served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating: "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." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 7 hours ago, mikebike said: Is there no depths to which 45 won't sink? Not yet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billd766 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said: It sure gives the Anti-Trumpsters a reason to post and beat their drums. But there would be no need for that if Trump himself had not brought the subject up. Self inflicted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVENKEEL Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, billd766 said: But there would be no need for that if Trump himself had not brought the subject up. Self inflicted. It's a hard subject, no doubt. Previously we just buried our head in the sand and ignored it. When illegals come to the US and have kids aka "Anchor Babies" or when an entire business is formed around tourists coming to the US for the Sole Purpose of having their kid born a US citizen, well something has to be said. It's a sore subject that needs to be brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzannegoh Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, billd766 said: But there would be no need for that if Trump himself had not brought the subject up. Self inflicted. Most likely deliberate strategy on Trumps' part. He knows floating that idea will cause the media, and people who would never vote for a Republican anyway, to start hyperventilating. And when the media & the left start hyperventilating it lends credence to his claims about the media and the left. Edited October 31, 2018 by suzannegoh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 4 hours ago, kamahele said: So this is nothing but a ploy to get morons to vote for his candidates next Tuesday. He cannot end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution. To your first sentence, YES. And the fact that we do have quite a few morons, it will work. Whether Trump has enough morons....well, we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, suzannegoh said: Most likely deliberate strategy on Trumps' part. He knows floating that idea will cause the media, and people who would never vote for a Republican anyway, to start hyperventilating. And when the media & the left start hyperventilating it lends credence to his claims about the media and the left. Why invocation of the left, why invocation of hyperventilating media. Please don't answer, no need. Especially not since that is not needed at all: the legalities and truth don't matter, all he wants is appeal to his base, who love anything that mentions 'stop immigration'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzannegoh Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said: It's a hard subject, no doubt. Previously we just buried our head in the sand and ignored it. When illegals come to the US and have kids aka "Anchor Babies" or when an entire business is formed around tourists coming to the US for the Sole Purpose of having their kid born a US citizen, well something has to be said. It's a sore subject that needs to be brought up. I wonder how many anchor babies there really are and whether it's a statistically significant problem. It does seem a bit upside-down that the child of an American and a Thai who is born in Thailand would not automatically get US citizenship but that the child of two non-citizens who are illegally in the US would if he/she was born on US soil. But would changing that really reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the US by very much? Edited October 31, 2018 by suzannegoh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berkshire Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, suzannegoh said: I wonder how many anchor babies there really are and whether it's a statistically significant problem. It does seem a bit upside-down that the child and an American and a Thai who is born in Thailand would not automatically get US citizenship but that the child of two non-citizens who are illegally in the US would if he/she was born on US soil. But would changing that really reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the US by very much? A child of a US citizen born abroad has the right to US citizenship. So your argument is a bit...Trumpian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, lostlink said: Senator Jacob Howard served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating: "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." Meh, this was his speech during DEBATE of the amendment, hardly the be-all and end-all of the "intent" right? http://www.tifis.org/sources/Howard.pdf Hoping you understand the meaning of the word "debate". 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 but will include every other class of persons. It is difficult for me to determine what Sen. Howard really meant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 So Trump is now claiming he can change the US Constitution with an executive order. Did someone tell him about Prayut's Article 44 powers? Those who think this is a good idea should consider the consequences. If this President can repeal a constitutional amendment through executive order, so can future presidents. The next President might decide to repeal the second amendment. Or a Christian teetotaler might repeal the 21st amendment and bring back Prohibition. Does anyone know if Mike Pence drinks? If you want to end birthright citizenship you have to modify or repeal the 14th amendment. End of story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srinivas Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 A constitutional amendment is not needed as it is up to courts interpretation. This would defnitely remove some incentive to migration via child birth. That said, tackling immigration reform was a campaign pledge . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now