PeterS

She gave birth to Don Jr in 1978

She gave birth to Ivanka in 1981

She gave birth to Eric in 1984

Let cancel their birthright citizenship and kick them out the door...

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

We're trying to tone down the anti-Semitism in America, it has become lethal.

It would be nice though if liberal progs would pack all their h**e and discontent in their fking bags and get the hell out of here.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

Obammy was born in Kenya.

His brother, his mammy and his villagers all confirm it.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

I will pay for a one way ticket to hell

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

True, how very true.

Maybe he will lose his passport and stay.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

Hey Mister Not so Bright. They're not citizens by birthright.

if you were born to parents, at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, you automatically gained U.S. citizenship through the process of acquisition. It does not matter whether you were born on American soil or foreign.

Donald Trump was a U.S. citizen at the time of their births DUMBA$$!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Won't have to. He's earned it with frequent flyer miles.

peg w

I was thinking about this. Trumps first duty as president is to uphold the constitution of thr US. Just because he dosen't like the 14th amendment he can't do away with it. The executive order he plans to sign getting rid of people's birthright will be illegal. He can be impeached for doing that act.
Trump needs to take s simple civics class.
To change the 14th admendnent would take 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate,
then it goes to the states, it will need 3/4 of them. It won't hsppen.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

God you're delusional or just plain ignorant. He cannot in my legal opinion do away with the 14th Amendment with an E.O.. You are also correct about the way it would have to be repealed. However; the impeachment statement was stupid. He has every right to issue an E.O. and the directive would go to the courts where Trump IMHO would lose. If we went by your allegation Obama would have been impeached.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Brother you are right to consider the source of the information. Garbage in garbage out.

JimMe

The biggest problem with your proposal is that Pres Trump is not looking to cancel/renounce anyone's Citizenship... Every person born in Our USA to I*****l A***ns has USA Citizenship, and will retain it until they denounce it in writing thru the proper channels... Even with his Exec Order, only those born after wh**ever date the Order takes effect will a person born in Our USA to I*****l A***ns not have USA Citizenship... And even that's true only if the USA Federal Courts conclude his Order is Constitutionally Legal...

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, CO

Which will ultimately go to SCOTUS.

Smedley_buzkill

You aren't very bright, are you? US law requires one US citizen parent. The Court has never ruled on the status of the children of i******s.

Smedley_buzkill

I suggest you read the entire Amendment; not just the first section. You have no understanding of the Amendment of it's history or it's original intent. In 1868, "subject to the jurisdiction meant more than it does today. The authors of the Amendment stated that the 14th was a restatement of existing law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This act defined jurisdiction as owing no allegiance to a foreign government. I******s do not fit this description.
The only time the Court ruled that a person was a birth citizen when his parents were non citizens was US v Wong Kim Ark 1898. The ruling was limited to the offspring of permanent legal residents, and said nothing about i******s, because there was no such thing as an i*****l a***n at the time. They specified that the parents had to be permanent legal residents for the child to be a birth citizen. The actual wording of the decision is as follows:

The [Fourteenth] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of wh**ever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States
As I explained earlier, domiciled mean maintaining a permanent legal residence in this country. A person who is here in violation of our laws, without our permission, in effect a trespasser, cannot maintain a permanent legal residence, therefore the ruling does not apply.

As for requiring another Amendment, nope. Section 5 of the Amendment reads as follows:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article"

Case in point: There was no Amendment required to grant birth citizenship to Indians in 1924, some 56 years after the ratification of the Amendment that said "All persons born or naturalized...." Note that it did not say except for Indians.
You see, Indians could not be taxed, or required to serve in the military, hence they were not subject to the jurisdiction as per the 1868 understanding of the phrase. Diplomats and representatives of foreign governments also. Hence, their children are ineligible for birth citizenship.
Kind of like wetbacks.

Smedley_buzkill

He is not doing away with the Amendment, he is enforcing it in it's original intent. There has never been a ruling as to the status of the children of wetbacks. The Court has only ruled that the children of permanent legal residents are birth citizens. Not wetbacks, nor people here on a temporary visa. PERMANENT. I don't care how long you have been here, if you are here illegally your residence is not legal.