Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship

[Mel52]

lol [emoji38] this is why I gotta stay out of political discussions seriously it’s nothing but trouble because there are so many extremist posts on here lol [emoji38]

 

 

[elmrfudd]

long overdue. but the left, as always, will state without a shred of factual evidence call it racist

[Mel52]

long overdue. but the left, as always, will state without a shred of factual evidence call it racist

That is also true unfortunately

[Foexie]

that morron forget he is an immigrants son himself. Maybe that law can go back in time for 75 or 100y.

[Mel52]

But sometimes the right is not always on the correct side either

 

 

[elmrfudd]

1 minute ago, Foexie said:

that morron forget he is an immigrants son himself. Maybe that law can go back in time for 75 or 100y.

LEGAL immigrant.

[tgw]

19 minutes ago, Slip said:

It really isn't.  You have to think a little harder.  But I will reformulate as you ask.  Why do you think it is ok to treat these two groups differently, when in terms of their actual situations there is no difference whatsoever?

 

No serious criminal record would have been a particular sore point for many immigrants through the ages.  Do you think that those criteria should have been applied to them?

okay, it's clearer now.

 

1- I am against retroactive laws. so any citizenships that are already granted can't be taken back.

 

2- the two groups are not in the same situation. the first group should be deported while the second can obviously remain and apply for citizenship (I have insufficient knowledge about how the US system works, but I guess there are many things that are different for illegal immigrants, what about taxes for example?)

 

2.1 - for the first group, illegals and children of illegals, there should be a procedure for applying to stay legally, for example by petitioning the local community and fulfilling certain criteria.

 

3- criminal record: with "serious" I mean for example crimes that are punished with more than 6 months of effective prison (no suspended sentence) in rather lenient countries (for example a number of EU countries). Typically these sentences are given for violent rape, armed robbery, willful assault with a weapon, etc.

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by tgw

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Mel52 said:

But I really don’t appreciate the hatred of our president whether you like him or not he’s still our elected President and I also often see on here an extreme hatred of America and Americans as well as a lot of extremists views. So sometimes it’s best for me to just ignore these discussions so I don’t get sucked into an argument or an emotional response. Because there are a lot of people on this forum who just love to bait people like me into dumb arguments and emotional responses. So I ought to just stay out of some of these discussions. It’s not like I’m gonna change anyone’s mind or whatever is in their heart especially if it’s hatred in their hearts. And I don’t mean this comment about anyone in specific on this topic but I haven’t read all of the posts and I probably don’t want to lol . I don’t hate anyone because it’s just not good for you inside hatred will just burn you up inside and life’s to short for that.

 

Hatred of America on this forum? Probably only if one doesn't see the difference between disagreement with American policies and America.

And hatred of Americans? Don't think I have seen that.

[Slip]

35 minutes ago, tgw said:

okay, it's clearer now.

 

1- I am against retroactive laws. so any citizenships that are already granted can't be taken back.

 

2- the two groups are not in the same situation. the first group should be deported while the second can obviously remain and apply for citizenship (I have insufficient knowledge about how the US system works, but I guess there are many things that are different for illegal immigrants, what about taxes for example?)

 

2.1 - for the first group, illegals and children of illegals, there should be a procedure for applying to stay legally, for example by petitioning the local community and fulfilling certain criteria.

 

3- criminal record: with "serious" I mean for example crimes that are punished with more than 6 months of effective prison (no suspended sentence) in rather lenient countries (for example a number of EU countries). Typically these sentences are given for violent rape, armed robbery, willful assault with a weapon, etc.

 

Thanks for a very reasonable and sensible response.

[choff56]

13 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Not often I agree with anything that man has to say, but I believe the automatic right to citizenship because a baby was born inside the border has little relevance in this day of mass travel and border hopping.

 

Australia changed it's citizenship act about 1986 to state babies born there get the same status as their parents. If both parents are illegal, baby is too. If just one parent has PR, baby is a citizen.

This came about because increasing numbers of pregnant woman, from many countries, were flying in to give birth to an Australian. Hong Kong residents were forefront in the scheme at the time because many saw this as a backup in case the return to China went bad.(!) 

Prophetic.

[dave s]

There are two separate issues here, and they are governed by different kinds of law.

 

Birthright citizenship is part of the 14th amendment to the American constitution. The "Founding Fathers", basically a group of aristocratic, conservative farmers, had been through the French And Indian War, its horrible tax and lingering debt consequences, a war of independence, and the disastrous Articles Of Confederation. They were suspicious of government, and deliberately made it difficult to change the basic rules. Except for the "quick fix" Bill Of Rights, an amendment has happened maybe about every 15 years.

 

6 hours ago, watcharacters said:

No problem. Don't like a constitutional amendment just change it. It only takes a  two thirds majority of the US States to ratify any changes. It's been done before and properly planned for by the framers of the Constitution.

Well, no, that's not quite correct. There are four ways to make a change. Both houses of the national legislature can vote yes on a proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority, which sends it to the 50 statehouses. 3/4 of the state legislatures must vote yes, to ratify the amendment. All but one amendment has been adopted this way. OR, 3/4 of the states can hold a special state constitutional convention which approves the amendment: the 25th amendment, which repealed the 18th amendment after 14 years of mob violence over nationwide prohibition of alcohol, was adopted this way. The other two ways have never been tried. 2/3 of the state legislatures can demand that the national legislature hold a national constitutional convention (like the one that set up the constitution to begin with). If that convention approves any amendments, they go back to the states. Each one would require 3/4 of the state legislatures to vote yes on it, OR require 3/4 of the states to hold a state constitutional convention that approved the amendment.

 

American citizens have rights, privileges and immunity, which they cannot be deprived of without due process of law. But there are rules and limitations. A minor can be, and is often, constrained from exercising his adult conduct. He cannot vote yet. He cannot buy booze. He cannot buy cigarettes. If he signs a contract, it probably is not legally binding. He might not be allowed to buy a bunch of assault rifles.

 

3 hours ago, 55Jay said:

They give birth to a kid in the bedroom. You discover all this the next morning, but by law, the kid, and the parents, are now your houseguests for life.

The problem here is not so much that an infant born on U.S. soil is granted citizenship. That would not be easy to change. The problem is "chaining": potential immigrants are given preferential treatment under U.S. law if they are related to an existing citizen. One person in a family gets in, lots of other family members may get in for free. Chaining is part of ordinary law, not constitutional law, and until last November's election, the Republicans in both houses of the national legislature could have passed, and President Trump could have signed into law, changes to this policy. In particular, they could have said that a native-born, birthright citizenship child of foreign parents is not allowed to "sponsor" anyone for citizenship until he or she reaches the age of majority, just like you can't vote or drink until you are old enough. So, the baby can stay in America (all alone!!!) because of birthright citizenship, but the parents must go home when their tourist visa expires if they have no other right to stay. The child is then useless to help the extended family members "chain" onto the baby's citizenship, until 16 to 21 years pass, depending on the state of residency, when the child becomes a full adult. Birthright citizenship is a distraction, a red herring (you gonna abandon your kid in U.S.A. and never even see it for a couple decades?): chaining, or lack of it, substantially affects who can stay.

 

Trump and the Republicans had owned the parts of the American government that make and enforce laws for a good two years time: why didn't they fix this problem?

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by dave s

[yogi100]

I think you liberal minded folk will find that there will be a lot more support for Trump on this matter among the great silent majority than you're bargaining on.

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll posts removed along with replies.  

[Mel52]

You know regardless of everything else I discussed with people on here about Trump I actually do totally disagree with ending birthright citizenship though. And it is the 14th Amendment of our constitution I believe if I’m not mistaken. I used to have all the constitutional amendments memorized.

 

[Mel52]

But like I said I’m not a conservative or a liberal I just believe in right and wrong and just causes.

 

[Morch]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Hatred of America on this forum? Probably only if one doesn't see the difference between disagreement with American policies and America.

And hatred of Americans? Don't think I have seen that.

 

Plenty of both, unless one is trying hard to look the other way or misleadingly pretend otherwise.

[DLock]

54 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Strange question since you did not contribute anything yourself, and I have already. And to remind you, trump's immigration status is not the topic at hand.

I clarified a very important point on illegal Vs legal immigration that the Left seem incapable or unwilling to understand.

 

If this birthright discussion is not rooted in immigration status, what is it about?

 

Come on Kid, bring something worthy of a debate, not just playing spelling bee and semantics.

[stevenl]

34 minutes ago, DLock said:

I clarified a very important point on illegal Vs legal immigration that the Left seem incapable or unwilling to understand.

 

If this birthright discussion is not rooted in immigration status, what is it about?

 

Come on Kid, bring something worthy of a debate, not just playing spelling bee and semantics.

You did not clarify anything, you repeated an argument already given many times on here.

 

You were referring to his birthright, not this birthright. Not semantics, important distinction.

[roobaa01]

very good to reduce chain migration and the social burden on us society together with abolishing the flores rules, it will reduce the flow of unwanted economic migrants.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Basil B]

For once I think he may well have a point if both parents are nationals of another country, the real issue the principles of nationality should be internationally agreed.

 

I do not agree with dual citizenship but see nothing wrong with people hold multiple multiple citizenships as long as one is defined by international  convention the primary nationality that can neither be taken away.  

 

But there must be compasion on this issue, and exceptions made if both parents are stateless or a young adult has been brought up in a country and would find it difficult to survive in another country if sent back alone. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎8‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 2:38 PM, ThaiBunny said:

I'll be interested to see how 'Jesus' Trump goes about repealing the 14th Amendment

He doesn't have to repeal it. He could just make it a part of getting a visa to prove that one is not pregnant.

Of course the courts would stop that, but there are other solutions to the problem.

I don't normally post on Trump threads now, but your question was interesting.

[zydeco]

17 hours ago, Mel52 said:

You know I don’t particularly like Trump either but he has done some good and yes some bad as well and he talks to much before thinking about what he’s saying first and then suddenly it becomes policy like the border wall lol. But seriously the hatred of him is horrible I know he does bring some of it on himself but I’ve never seen a United States President so hated by the media as Trump ever in my life time. And that’s probably because he really isn’t a very likable guy but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a bad guy or a racist. I’m in the middle politically I’m a moderate when it comes to politics in fact I can’t stand politics at all it drives me nuts trying to rationalize some of these things we hear on the news and things I’ve actually been involved in over the past 30 years or so. But I really don’t hate him at all I don’t necessarily like him particularly but I respect him as my elected president just like I respected Obama and all of our presidents in my life time including Bush and Clinton. Obama was just more likable even I liked him even though I totally disagreed with most of his policies not all of them but quite a few of them. But everyone is entitled to their opinion more so if you’re an American citizen who can vote in our elections.

Do your friends drink a lot of coffee when they're around visiting your place?

[justin case]

hope they do it ... if child is born here, to non -thai, even living here, 0 rights

 

for all of us, non thai

[zydeco]

16 hours ago, Slip said:

Why do you think that Americans who are born and have lived in the U.S. for 21 years should be less entitled to citizenship than those others who are also born and have lived in the U.S. for 21 years? 

 

If you believe that speaking English well enough and having no serious criminal record should be applied to the first group, why not the second?

 

Would you like to have seen those criteria applied to the less recent immigrants (legal or otherwise?)

Because the point is that, being the children of illegals, they should not be held to be Americans. 

[Redline]

20 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

If that is how you define it?  Yes.

Bye bye USA

[Redline]

18 hours ago, Mel52 said:

You know I don’t particularly like Trump either but he has done some good and yes some bad as well and he talks to much before thinking about what he’s saying first and then suddenly it becomes policy like the border wall lol. But seriously the hatred of him is horrible I know he does bring some of it on himself but I’ve never seen a United States President so hated by the media as Trump ever in my life time. And that’s probably because he really isn’t a very likable guy but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a bad guy or a racist. I’m in the middle politically I’m a moderate when it comes to politics in fact I can’t stand politics at all it drives me nuts trying to rationalize some of these things we hear on the news and things I’ve actually been involved in over the past 30 years or so. But I really don’t hate him at all I don’t necessarily like him particularly but I respect him as my elected president just like I respected Obama and all of our presidents in my life time including Bush and Clinton. Obama was just more likable even I liked him even though I totally disagreed with most of his policies not all of them but quite a few of them. But everyone is entitled to their opinion more so if you’re an American citizen who can vote in our elections.

I respect everyone"s opinion, and I am am Independent voter.  I do not believe that you respect someone for their title.  People earn respect through their actions.  I don't even respect Trump as a human, as he cares about no one but himself, and he has cheated and preyed off the poor his whole life.  He has no friends because people are expendable to him.  He demands loyalty, but he has none.  Your moral foundation must be fluid, but I was not raised that way.  He is an immature person, and has no respect for the US Constitution, and I am sure he has never read it.  Trump lies hundreds of times a week, calls the free press an enemy, which is what every dictator has done.  I assume you don't care about the environment because he's destroying it. I do agree with some of his actions, but not how he has handled them, and I also disagreed with how Obama handled some issues.  Why does Trump only praise nationalists and dictators, and degrades allies?  The USA is a "Democracy", and millions have died protecting the Constitution. 

[Berkshire]

7 hours ago, DLock said:

Can you not understand that simple distinction between legal and illegal? It's really the entire premise of the argument, so understanding that will help your cause.

You need to consider the full context of what Trump (or S. Miller) is trying to do, and it includes reducing/eliminating LEGAL immigration.  This includes chain migration, asylum seekers, and other legal immigration categories.  FACT.

 

But to the birthright issue, yes the parents are illegals (not criminals, but undocumented) and the children were born in the USA.  So just deport them to a country they've never been?  That's just patently cruel and punishes people who did not commit a crime.  

 

While I recognize that some people (e.g., Chinese) have abused the system, certainly there are ways to prevent that specific thing.  But the reason they're getting away with it is because it's largely legal....which you claim is the primary distinction. 

[DLock]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

You need to consider the full context of what Trump (or S. Miller) is trying to do, and it includes reducing/eliminating LEGAL immigration.  This includes chain migration, asylum seekers, and other legal immigration categories.  FACT.

 

But to the birthright issue, yes the parents are illegals (not criminals, but undocumented) and the children were born in the USA.  So just deport them to a country they've never been?  That's just patently cruel and punishes people who did not commit a crime.  

 

While I recognize that some people (e.g., Chinese) have abused the system, certainly there are ways to prevent that specific thing.  But the reason they're getting away with it is because it's largely legal....which you claim is the primary distinction. 

 

Well reasoned, and I agree, it's a complex situation.

 

Legal experts say that unlawful presence in the US by itself is not a crime in most cases. However, it still a civil violation, that puts a person at risk at being deported.

 

Unlawful entry is classified a misdemeanor. So, someone in the US without a valid permit could be considered breaking the law by having entered the country illegally, or breached the terms of a tourist visa and never left.

 

So the classification of an undocumented alien being a "criminal" is not crystal clear and open for debate.

 

And yes the children born in the US to undocumented immigrants did nothing wrong per se, have spent their life in the US and know no different, however are used and "anchor babies" and the loophole is abused widely.

 

Whilst I do not believe Trump will be successful and believe he is just baiting and triggering the Left for fun (much like Greenland), with 11million (up to 20 million) undocumented aliens, it's something that needs to be considered.

 

lucky they can't vote, or The Donald would never had gotten elected.

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.  

[elmrfudd]

how many countries grant birthright citizenship?