Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship

[sirineou]

Sure he will change it, right after he collect the money from Mexico for his wall. ????

trump says a lot of things, I stopped listening a long time ago , they are either brain farts or wedge issues designed to distract , divide, and confuse the feeble minded in supporting him.

He desperately needs to be re-elected to hold off prosecution for another  four years and run down the clock on the statute of limitations, and would say or do anything towards that end.

[manitoba]

On 8/24/2019 at 9:04 PM, 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?

So your grandparents were illegal immigrants, who managed to use the system to become legal immigrants. Therefore you are grandchild of one of the child's, which is not so legal immigrant. 

 

You do know, that you are not a real American, don't you? When will you go back to your motherland?

[olfu]

Gee, 11 pages of talking and no result.

As a US citizen I avoid these useless discussions and it remind me Soviet Union which claimed being best in universe and then suddenly collapse.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, olfu said:

Gee, 11 pages of talking and no result.

As a US citizen I avoid these useless discussions and it remind me Soviet Union which claimed being best in universe and then suddenly collapse.

 

What "result" would you expect? It's an internet forum.

[metisdead]

A post containing inflammatory insults toward other members has been removed as well as a reply. 

[mikebike]

On 8/24/2019 at 9:04 PM, DLock said:

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 I don’t understand is why you think USA born newborns are immigrants. The topic is birthright citizenship. Nothing in the definition of “immigrant” would classify a newborn as an immigrant.

[mikebike]

20 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

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.

In regards to birthright citizenship, what allegiance does a newborn have to another country?

[bristolboy]

On 8/25/2019 at 7:11 PM, 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.

'Except it was Trumbull who answered the racists of his own time who worried about “naturalizing the children of the Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.” Trumbull said the citizenship clause “undoubtedly” would do that, and that a child of such immigrants “is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” In other remarks, Trumbull made it even clearer, saying, “Birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every freeborn person in this land, is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.”'

[zydeco]

Yes, the headline is correct. Trump will look at birthright citizenship. Seriously, he will. Then, he'll forget about it and ignore it like the last time he brought it up. In fact, the subject is already disappearing.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

'Except it was Trumbull who answered the racists of his own time who worried about “naturalizing the children of the Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.” Trumbull said the citizenship clause “undoubtedly” would do that, and that a child of such immigrants “is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” In other remarks, Trumbull made it even clearer, saying, “Birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every freeborn person in this land, is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.”'

I forgot to include the link. Here it is:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/birthright-citizenship-is-a-fundamental-constitutional-value/2018/07/20/49d7f9d2-8c46-11e8-8b20-60521f27434e_story.html

[Thomas J]

On 8/22/2019 at 8:52 AM, Berkshire said:

Good luck trying to change the 14th amendment. 

It has nothing to do with trying to repeal the 14th amendment.  It has to do with the Supreme Court correcting its incorrect application.  There were three post civil war Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th abolished slavery, the 14th guaranteed citizenship to "people under the jurisdiction" of the USA, ( Slaves) and the 15th, guaranteed voting rights of slaves.  The USA had no immigration laws in 1860's so Congress never contemplated that the 14th would apply to foreigners having children inside the borders of the USA.  Consider in 1924 Congress passed the American Indian Citizenship Act. to grant citizenship to American Indians born in the USA.  There was a question since Indians were members of the tribes that "they were not under the jurisdiction" of the USA and hence not citizens.  Though a tourist is "under the jurisdiction" of USA laws it is incomplete jurisdiction.  They can not vote, can not hold elected office, can not be drafted, nor compelled to pay USA taxes.  An Ambassador to the USA whose children are born in the USA are not USA citizens. It is held the ambassador is still "under the jurisdiction" of his/her home country.  It is ludicrous to grant citizenship to the children of citizens of other countries and not say those children are also have some jurisdictional control by their home country.  Every document in Congress discussing the 14th amendment concerned granting "slaves" and the children of slaves born in the USA citizenship since the South was passing laws barring them from becoming citizens and voting. 

 

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

It has nothing to do with trying to repeal the 14th amendment.  It has to do with the Supreme Court correcting its incorrect application.  There were three post civil war Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th abolished slavery, the 14th guaranteed citizenship to "people under the jurisdiction" of the USA, ( Slaves) and the 15th, guaranteed voting rights of slaves.  The USA had no immigration laws in 1860's so Congress never contemplated that the 14th would apply to foreigners having children inside the borders of the USA.  Consider in 1924 Congress passed the American Indian Citizenship Act. to grant citizenship to American Indians born in the USA.  There was a question since Indians were members of the tribes that "they were not under the jurisdiction" of the USA and hence not citizens.  Though a tourist is "under the jurisdiction" of USA laws it is incomplete jurisdiction.  They can not vote, can not hold elected office, can not be drafted, nor compelled to pay USA taxes.  An Ambassador to the USA whose children are born in the USA are not USA citizens. It is held the ambassador is still "under the jurisdiction" of his/her home country.  It is ludicrous to grant citizenship to the children of citizens of other countries and not say those children are also have some jurisdictional control by their home country.  Every document in Congress discussing the 14th amendment concerned granting "slaves" and the children of slaves born in the USA citizenship since the South was passing laws barring them from becoming citizens and voting. 

 

In other remarks, Trumbull made it even clearer, saying, “Birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every freeborn person in this land, is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.”'

[Thomas J]

On 8/25/2019 at 11:14 PM, Credo said:

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.   

Credo, that is not true. Though anyone in the USA is under the jurisdiction it is not complete jurisdiction.  They can not vote, hold office, obtain a drivers license,  be drafted etc.  The country of the child's parents in all likelihood maintains some jurisdiction over the child since his/her parents are citizens.  Finally in 1924 the USA Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act to grant USA citizenship to American Indians.  Such a law would not be necessary if "any" child born on USA soil was automatically a citizen under the 14th Amendment.  The premise was that the Indians were also members of a tribe and therefore jurisdiction was not 100%.  It is ludicrous to think that Congress found it necessary to pass a separate bill to grant citizenship to the indigenous people of the USA but did by the 14th Amendment grant such birthright citizenship privilege to the rest of the world. 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

It has nothing to do with trying to repeal the 14th amendment.  It has to do with the Supreme Court correcting its incorrect application.  There were three post civil war Reconstruction Amendments.  The 13th abolished slavery, the 14th guaranteed citizenship to "people under the jurisdiction" of the USA, ( Slaves) and the 15th, guaranteed voting rights of slaves.  The USA had no immigration laws in 1860's so Congress never contemplated that the 14th would apply to foreigners having children inside the borders of the USA.  Consider in 1924 Congress passed the American Indian Citizenship Act. to grant citizenship to American Indians born in the USA.  There was a question since Indians were members of the tribes that "they were not under the jurisdiction" of the USA and hence not citizens.  Though a tourist is "under the jurisdiction" of USA laws it is incomplete jurisdiction.  They can not vote, can not hold elected office, can not be drafted, nor compelled to pay USA taxes.  An Ambassador to the USA whose children are born in the USA are not USA citizens. It is held the ambassador is still "under the jurisdiction" of his/her home country.  It is ludicrous to grant citizenship to the children of citizens of other countries and not say those children are also have some jurisdictional control by their home country.  Every document in Congress discussing the 14th amendment concerned granting "slaves" and the children of slaves born in the USA citizenship since the South was passing laws barring them from becoming citizens and voting. 

 

"Though a tourist is "under the jurisdiction" of USA laws it is incomplete jurisdiction.  They can not vote, can not hold elected office, can not be drafted, nor compelled to pay USA taxes. "

That does not mean it is incomplete jurisdiction. Voting, ability to hold elected office, drafting ability and US taxes are not related to jurisdiction.

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

In other remarks, Trumbull made it even clearer, saying, “Birth entitles a person to citizenship, that every freeborn person in this land, is, by virtue of being born here, a citizen of the United States.”'

First off Trumbull is not the end all in interpretation.  Also in 1866 there were no immigration laws so the "intention" that the 14th amendment was to grant the entire world  birth right citizenship is ludicrous.  All of the discussion in Congress including the 13th, 14th and 15th, concerned slaves. Not foreigners 

 

[elmrfudd]

On 8/25/2019 at 9:14 PM, Credo said:

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.

unless you are illegally entering the country it seems. amazing how that gets suspended to feed a narrative

[elmrfudd]

On 8/26/2019 at 1:38 PM, mikebike said:

In regards to birthright citizenship, what allegiance does a newborn have to another country?

the parents country of legal citizenship perhaps? just a thought using common sense

[Credo]

31 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

unless you are illegally entering the country it seems. amazing how that gets suspended to feed a narrative

The only narrative being fed is the one in your imagination.   Anyone entering a country who is not a diplomat, is subject to the laws of the country they enter, not the one they left.   
 

Whether you enter legally and overstay, whether you are here illegally or legally, you are subject only to the laws of the US.   

 

[DEKEM]

On 8/22/2019 at 8:52 AM, Berkshire said:

Good luck trying to change the 14th amendment.  If any amendment is outdated, it's the 2nd.  But no, we can't mess with the Constitution! 

if you research birthright citizenship on the internet, you would know that most of the countries in the world do not do this.  birthright citizenship is called jus soli.  look it up.  most countries in the world grant citizenship where at least one of the parents is already a citizen.  this is called jus sanguinis.

 

the only countries that follow jus soli are in the americas.

 

as recent as if I recall right 2005, ireland voted to discontinue jus soli.  and follow jus sanguinis.  other countries have followed suite.  frankly, with all the issues we are dealing with people abusing jus soli in the usa, I think it is only logical to go with jus sanguinis myself.

 

it is the ROOT of the problem with illegal immigration.  if you want to resolve a problem, you deal with the ROOT of the problem.  jus soli.

 

somebody said we cannot change it because it is in the us constitution.  fact is, the us constitution is a dynamic documentation purposely made that way by the creators to allow for changes if necessary.  changes are called amendments.

 

please president trump.  get rid of jus soli.  if you can do it with an executive order, do so.

[Credo]

25 minutes ago, DEKEM said:

if you research birthright citizenship on the internet, you would know that most of the countries in the world do not do this.  birthright citizenship is called jus soli.  look it up.  most countries in the world grant citizenship where at least one of the parents is already a citizen.  this is called jus sanguinis.

 

the only countries that follow jus soli are in the americas.

 

as recent as if I recall right 2005, ireland voted to discontinue jus soli.  and follow jus sanguinis.  other countries have followed suite.  frankly, with all the issues we are dealing with people abusing jus soli in the usa, I think it is only logical to go with jus sanguinis myself.

 

it is the ROOT of the problem with illegal immigration.  if you want to resolve a problem, you deal with the ROOT of the problem.  jus soli.

 

somebody said we cannot change it because it is in the us constitution.  fact is, the us constitution is a dynamic documentation purposely made that way by the creators to allow for changes if necessary.  changes are called amendments.

 

please president trump.  get rid of jus soli.  if you can do it with an executive order, do so.

The countries with birthright citizenship are not only in North America.   

 

Trump can't get rid of jus soli, it requires a constitutional amendment.   Go ahead, and while you're at it there are probably a few other amendments that might need a review.   

 

Having a child in the US does not insure that the parents can stay in the US.   It only insures that the child has the right to reside in the US.   A US citizen can petition for parents to reside in the US, but that can only happen when the child is physically here.

 

I suspect most people aren't really up to leaving the child in the US when their visa has expired or they are up for deportation.   The point is, they can leave the child if they are deported, but nothing insures that the parents will get to remain.   

 

For many, it's nothing more than an insurance policy for the child.   

 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Credo

[Credo]

On 8/26/2019 at 10:15 PM, Thomas J said:

Credo, that is not true. Though anyone in the USA is under the jurisdiction it is not complete jurisdiction.  They can not vote, hold office, obtain a drivers license,  be drafted etc.  The country of the child's parents in all likelihood maintains some jurisdiction over the child since his/her parents are citizens.  Finally in 1924 the USA Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act to grant USA citizenship to American Indians.  Such a law would not be necessary if "any" child born on USA soil was automatically a citizen under the 14th Amendment.  The premise was that the Indians were also members of a tribe and therefore jurisdiction was not 100%.  It is ludicrous to think that Congress found it necessary to pass a separate bill to grant citizenship to the indigenous people of the USA but did by the 14th Amendment grant such birthright citizenship privilege to the rest of the world. 

You are wrong.  When you enter the US you are under the full authority of the government.   Not everyone is allowed to vote.   If you have been convicted of a felony, you can't vote, yet you are under US jurisdiction.   We no longer have a draft, but you can be a foreign national and join the US military.   You can obtain a Driver's License without being a citizen.   But none of those things have anything to do with another country having jurisdiction over anyone.  

 

Indian Tribes were an exemption and the reason is that they were (and are) arguably sovereign entities.   A treaty can only be signed with a sovereign entity and since the Reservations were set up by treaty, they were considered as sovereign.   Thus the question of citizenship was clouded.   You can be assured that anyone who set foot off the reservation was completely under US jurisdiction.   

 

The Indian Citizenship Act only cleared up the issue of birthright citizenship.   There is no such thing as 'incomplete' jurisdiction.   Any dual national of any two countries can explain that to you.   

 

[usviphotography]

17 minutes ago, Credo said:

The countries with birthright citizenship are not only in North America.   

 

Trump can't get rid of jus soli, it requires a constitutional amendment.   Go ahead, and while you're at it there are probably a few other amendments that might need a review.   

 

Whether it requires a Constitutional Amendment or not is up to the Supreme Court. It is a novel question on which many respected legal scholars disagree. I'd feel pretty good about Trump's chances if it is heard after Ginsburg is replaced, but I'd be far less confident if the case were to be heard under the current composition of the Court. That is why I actually don't mind that Trump has slow walked this particular reform. 

[Credo]

19 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

Whether it requires a Constitutional Amendment or not is up to the Supreme Court. It is a novel question on which many respected legal scholars disagree. I'd feel pretty good about Trump's chances if it is heard after Ginsburg is replaced, but I'd be far less confident if the case were to be heard under the current composition of the Court. That is why I actually don't mind that Trump has slow walked this particular reform. 

The court has already ruled on the issue in the past and it has agreed born here you are a US citizen.   It has also upheld born in US waters, you're a citizen, born in US airspace, you are a US citizen.   

 

[DEKEM]

40 minutes ago, Credo said:

The countries with birthright citizenship are not only in North America.   

 

Trump can't get rid of jus soli, it requires a constitutional amendment.   Go ahead, and while you're at it there are probably a few other amendments that might need a review.   

 

Having a child in the US does not insure that the parents can stay in the US.   It only insures that the child has the right to reside in the US.   A US citizen can petition for parents to reside in the US, but that can only happen when the child is physically here.

 

I suspect most people aren't really up to leaving the child in the US when their visa has expired or they are up for deportation.   The point is, they can leave the child if they are deported, but nothing insures that the parents will get to remain.   

 

For many, it's nothing more than an insurance policy for the child.   

 

 

the way the current supreme court stacks up, I think we only need one more conservative to make the amendment to the constitution.  for sure, with president trump on for 4 more years followed by pence with 8, lots of changes are going to happen.

[DEKEM]

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

The court has already ruled on the issue in the past and it has agreed born here you are a US citizen.   It has also upheld born in US waters, you're a citizen, born in US airspace, you are a US citizen.   

 

what was in the past does not dictate what it will be in the future.  the fact that we now have roe vs wade is indication of this.

[DEKEM]

5 minutes ago, Credo said:

The court has already ruled on the issue in the past and it has agreed born here you are a US citizen.   It has also upheld born in US waters, you're a citizen, born in US airspace, you are a US citizen.   

 

are you aware that the usa citizenship granted to natives of puerto rico was granted via an act of congress?  there is a difference between citizenship granted via an act of congress versus that granted via the usa constitution.

 

the difference is....  an act of congress can be reversed by another act of congress.

 

if I had my way, I would grant puerto rico their independence.  and get rid of that welfare state.  from what I read, we give everybody who lives in puerto rico at LEAST 7000 dollars in assistance EVERY YEAR.  and for the most part, they hate the usa.  unbelievable.

 

is it true?  AOC comes from puerto rico?  ..figures.

[pegman]

 Now he is going after the citizenship of American enlisted men and employees  children born overseas. Thanks for your support. 

 

 

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-children-born-abroad-citizenship

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, DEKEM said:

are you aware that the usa citizenship granted to natives of puerto rico was granted via an act of congress?  there is a difference between citizenship granted via an act of congress versus that granted via the usa constitution.

 

the difference is....  an act of congress can be reversed by another act of congress.

 

if I had my way, I would grant puerto rico their independence.  and get rid of that welfare state.  from what I read, we give everybody who lives in puerto rico at LEAST 7000 dollars in assistance EVERY YEAR.  and for the most part, they hate the usa.  unbelievable.

 

is it true?  AOC comes from puerto rico?  ..figures.

And yet trump wants greenland.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, pegman said:

 Now he is going after the citizenship of American enlisted men and employees  children born overseas. Thanks for your support. 

 

 

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-children-born-abroad-citizenship

Here's the headline of the article. Just to make clear what Trump is up to.

Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says

 

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Wednesday.

Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be "residing in the United States," and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship.

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-children-born-abroad-citizenship

 

[DEKEM]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's the headline of the article. Just to make clear what Trump is up to.

Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says

 

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Wednesday.

Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be "residing in the United States," and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship.

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-children-born-abroad-citizenship

 

it is a sovereign right of a country to dictate who becomes a citizen of their country.  that's a given. for the most part, the only countries that follow birthright citizenship are countries in the americas namely north, central and south america.

 

the following link shows a map depicting this.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

 

most countries in the world follow the rule of jus sanguinis. which means at least one parent has to be a citizen already.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis