Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship

[Chomper Higgot]

32 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

how many countries grant birthright citizenship?

How many countries does the 14th Amendment of The Constitution of the United States apply to?

[observer90210]

Birthright citizenship is unconditionnal....for those legally established anywhere and should never be touched...but, if the people are illegalls, then it can become a racket with premeditation,  and occurs in many western nations.

[kylep]

Not a Trump fan but finally something good on his agenda. Long overdue, this ending of jus soli right enjoyed by anyone who happens to be born on US soil. Scamming parents travelling to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth to a wannabe American baby. That's fraud and just wrong. 

[manitoba]

Birthright is a bit silly idea as it is. There could be some better solutions for both USA as well as for the kids born in the USA.

 

If the child's parents have been legally lived in the USA for the past year or the kid have lived in the USA for a full year, then give the child citizenship. 

[Scott]

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

how many countries grant birthright citizenship?

That would be approximately 30.

 

[Forethat]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

That would be approximately 30.

 

35, to be exact.

[55Jay]

We've seen that list of countries before. ????

[GinBoy2]

On 8/22/2019 at 5:12 AM, mtls2005 said:

Eric and Don Jr. (anchor babies) sweating profusely. Quickly learning to speak "Canadian" and Czechoslovakian.

 

 

Actually Melania is Slovenian, and wasn't a citizen until July 2006. Barron was born March 2006.

 

Then we get to chain migration...vereeeery bad.

 

However you need ask, how did Melania's parents, a used car salesman and a textile factory worker get greencards?

 

Well the only way is that after Melania became a US citizen, she petitioned for then as first preference immigrants.

 

Whether or not birthright citizenship is a good or bad thing, the staggering hypocrisy of the Trump immigration stance is mind boggling.

 

It stuns me that his own families immigration path is sorta written out of history, and it appears that nobody cares! 

[Hans007]

Trump is right on this one...I know fe rich Russians come over to USA just to give birth to their baby...crazy!!

 

This must stop...

 

In Germany (and Netherlands also) you can only get a passport if ONE of the parents has the nationality. (Blood right)

 

Trumps talks lots of BS...but on this he is correct.

 

anyway..he should start building that wall....I think he is all talk...and no walk. We have some East German experts still arround regarding building walls....they could advise Trump hahahahaha. Then again...our wall was to keep people IN....LOL not people out...!

 

Take care..

 

Hans.

[Hans007]

5 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

how many countries grant birthright citizenship?

its somewhere on wikipedia i think...asfaik most South-American countries have it.

 

Hans

[Credo]

53 minutes ago, Hans007 said:

Trump is right on this one...I know fe rich Russians come over to USA just to give birth to their baby...crazy!!

 

This must stop...

 

In Germany (and Netherlands also) you can only get a passport if ONE of the parents has the nationality. (Blood right)

 

Trumps talks lots of BS...but on this he is correct.

 

anyway..he should start building that wall....I think he is all talk...and no walk. We have some East German experts still arround regarding building walls....they could advise Trump hahahahaha. Then again...our wall was to keep people IN....LOL not people out...!

 

Take care..

 

Hans.

It's a part of the Constitution.   He can't change it.   He might want to be very careful about opening a can of worms on changing the constitution.   

He's blowing hot air out his butt hole on this one.   He can't.   It's simple.   

 

[mikebike]

7 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

how many countries grant birthright citizenship?

Most countries in the Americas. They wanted to grow populations.

[atyclb]

13 hours ago, Credo said:

14 hours ago, Hans007 said:

Trump is right on this one...I know fe rich Russians come over to USA just to give birth to their baby...crazy!!

 

This must stop...

 

In Germany (and Netherlands also) you can only get a passport if ONE of the parents has the nationality. (Blood right)

 

Trumps talks lots of BS...but on this he is correct.

 

anyway..he should start building that wall....I think he is all talk...and no walk. We have some East German experts still arround regarding building walls....they could advise Trump hahahahaha. Then again...our wall was to keep people IN....LOL not people out...!

 

Take care..

 

Hans.

It's a part of the Constitution.   He can't change it.   He might want to be very careful about opening a can of worms on changing the constitution.   

He's blowing hot air out his butt hole on this one.   He can't.   It's simple.   

 

 

the constitutional assumption might be pertinent to those in the country legally. i guess this is something for the supreme court to figure out.

[Sujo]

Trump doesnt even know where his father was born. 

No hope for him or his supporters

[Slip]

On 8/23/2019 at 2:41 PM, zydeco said:

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

If you are an American national, which I believe you are, then you are seeking to remove from modern immigrants exactly the same protections that your ancestors enjoyed.

 

I personally don't believe that is the spirit of the U.S.

[DLock]

30 minutes ago, Slip said:

If you are an American national, which I believe you are, then you are seeking to remove from modern immigrants exactly the same protections that your ancestors enjoyed.

 

I personally don't believe that is the spirit of the U.S.

Incorrect.

 

My grandparents came LEGALLY to the USA. They didn't cross into the USA or overstay their tourist visa. They emigrated LEGALLY, satisfying all criteria at the time.

 

These parents of "anchor" babies came illegally. It's not even close to what my ancestors "enjoyed".

 

I want all immigrants to respect the entry process and do it legally. If they satisfy the criteria, then let them in. If they don't, refuse entry. If they sneak in, deport them.

 

Why is that so hard to understand?

[Redline]

On 8/23/2019 at 4:03 PM, 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. 

It’s a very small fraction, and everyone agrees that if an immigrant is dangerous, they should be jailed and deported 

[elmrfudd]

22 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

How many countries does the 14th Amendment of The Constitution of the United States apply to?

weak deflection, but does the 14th amendment actually say anyone on us soil who gives birth is an automatic citizen?

[elmrfudd]

22 hours ago, observer90210 said:

Birthright citizenship is unconditionnal....for those legally established anywhere and should never be touched...but, if the people are illegalls, then it can become a racket with premeditation,  and occurs in many western nations.

birthright citizenship is unconditional for LEGAL citizens. it ends there. as anyone with a sliver of common sense would think

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

birthright citizenship is unconditional for LEGAL citizens. it ends there. as anyone with a sliver of common sense would think

Except, the evidence is it doesn’t end there.

 

Don’t confuse you wishful thinking for fact.

 

[Slip]

1 hour ago, DLock said:

Incorrect.

 

My grandparents came LEGALLY to the USA. They didn't cross into the USA or overstay their tourist visa. They emigrated LEGALLY, satisfying all criteria at the time.

 

These parents of "anchor" babies came illegally. It's not even close to what my ancestors "enjoyed".

 

I want all immigrants to respect the entry process and do it legally. If they satisfy the criteria, then let them in. If they don't, refuse entry. If they sneak in, deport them.

 

Why is that so hard to understand?

What criteria?

[Credo]

5 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

birthright citizenship is unconditional for LEGAL citizens. it ends there. as anyone with a sliver of common sense would think

Nope.   It was settled by the US Supreme Court 120 years ago.   It has since been upheld in numerous scenarios.   

 

https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-supreme-court-case-confirmed-birthright-citizenship/

 

[kevin612]

Somehow I agree with him on this one, I don’t want illegal immigrants as well.

[gamb00ler]

Sure it does.  What's good for one country is never good for another.  It's all about being disingenuous about Trump.

I believe it’s actually about the culture of the country in question not about Trump unless you see him as a cultural teririst hell bent on destroying the values/culture of America.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[DLock]

11 hours ago, Slip said:

What criteria?

 

If someone entered the US illegally, or overstayed the agreed visa, they are not a legal citizen. 

 

It very simple. 

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, DLock said:

 

If someone entered the US illegally, or overstayed the agreed visa, they are not a legal citizen. 

 

It very simple. 

Which is not an answer to the question.

[DLock]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Which is not an answer to the question.

 

Left semantics again.

 

Ok, ask the question you want answered.

[elmrfudd]

20 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Except, the evidence is it doesn’t end there.

 

Don’t confuse you wishful thinking for fact.

 

don't confuse your opinion with fact.

 

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

[elmrfudd]

15 hours ago, Credo said:

Nope.   It was settled by the US Supreme Court 120 years ago.   It has since been upheld in numerous scenarios.   

 

https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-supreme-court-case-confirmed-birthright-citizenship/

 

 

 

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

[Credo]

3 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

 

 

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

It's been through the Courts on numerous occasions.   When it has reached the SC, they have always upheld born on US soil, you are a US citizen by birth.   The courts have upheld that if you are born on a boat in US waters, you are a US citizen.   If you are born on an Airplane in US airspace, you are a US citizen.   
 

And you can stop with the 'subject to the jurisdiction' line because anyone, with the exception of diplomats, IS subject to US law on US soil.   

 

Attempts at amending the birthright law have always faced a bipartisan failure and that is, in part, due to the fact that the politicians knew it would be challenged and would not upheld.   

Also, take a look into the situation with regard to Canada.   Thousands of Canadian children have been and still are being born in the US.   In the past the lack of hospitals/medical services in some of the rural areas, meant many crossed the border to give birth.   Those children are all US citizens -- as determined by the Courts.   

 

People can talk all they want about the situation, but the point is the 14th Amendment is pretty clear and you're probably going to have to repeal and replace it.   Courts are not generally inclined to reverse previous precedence.   

 

I am not particularly fussed one way or the other on the issue.   Birthright citizenship has been altered in several countries.  However, if you want to change it, just like the 2nd Amendment, you need to go through the legal process.