slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Seth

She didn't sneak in or outstay a visa, and marrying an American is a different story.

Anchor babies are those who are born to women who are here illegally or come in on a short term visitor's visa with the intention of having a baby here for the sole purpose of his/her citizenship.

Imagine one of these making it across the border and yelling "TOUCHDOWN!!!!"

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

*********************************************************************
On the Street: We Went to a Trump Rally. Here Are the Stories No One Tells.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCfpNn0WnqM&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell%22&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWldFNU9XSTBNbVk1TmpsaiIsInQiOiJ5ejZKXC9GRmZHaDQ3ZEMzYko4TldNdmR4cEN6WHFxTCtUTDlNOHZvNWY1WkNoeXY5eWNJb1hIM3ZUN1ZVTmNNMjB5V2s0QXZieWY0OTV3VlZRcGRoSEEzSm5jMWJCUlA4cnZERmNIZENcL1VsclNSZWVXVE9HblpMTnRhaElSaWZjIn0%3D

*************************************************************************
Go President Trump
Build That Wall
Vote Republicans
MAGA

Seth

LOLOL! So spot on!

moldyoldy

I thought he said chain migration, you know like melania's parents.

Seth

And funny thing, they brought their own money with them, as they have enough not to have to go hat in hand to the U.S. taxpayer for anything.

This makes them much more welcome than someone being brought in to immediately start feeding off the government teet.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Pete did you not read and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Please define in your own words what this clause means to you.

The law, the 14th amendment states the qualifing precedent that was defined in 1866 by the representative that sponsored the bill. If a child is born to parents who were from Ireland then the child is Irish. If the child was born to parents from Italy, the child is Italian. But what you are saying is if the child is born from the same parents as above the child is American. Based upon the sponsor of the amendment, that is not true.

Also according to you, if a child was born to a diplomat living in an embassy here in America, the child is American? The diplomat would have a problem with that.

If the parents are American either by birth or naturalization, then the child is American. The reason is because the two qualifications are met--1. Birth or naturalization. 2. Jurisdiction. Whereas for the non-citizen the jurisdiction is questioned. That's the principle that needs to be clarified. That clarification comes from the Supreme Court. So don't react or overreact so quickly. Both subjects must be fulfilled before citizenship can be granted.

Smedley_buzkill

Only one parent has to be a citizen. Try again, tovarisch.

PeterS

It means that individuals born or naturalized are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the states therein. What else could it mean?


But based on the wording of the bill it is true. And as I asked Blade Runner, if the author of the bill meant to say something other than what was written in the bill why didn't he just say it? The mistake being made here is that conservatives are trying to apply the 14th amendment to illegal immigrants when at the time the amendment was written no such nomenclature existed. It was assumed, that unless you were here for some official reason you were in this country for the purpose of citizenship. If you wanted to be a citizen of Italy or Ireland why were you here instead of there?


No, according to me, a child born to a diplomat would be a citizen of the country of the parent's residence. Diplomats were here as part of their job--not because they wanted to migrate to this country. That's why any children born to them while they were here would be citizens of the parents home country--a country they would return to once their jobs were finished.


I haven't overreacted at all. It's you conservatives who are all up in arms terrified that the brown horde will overtake tried and true Americans.

PeterS

Indians were citizens of the Nations they belonged to thus the ruling in the case of John Elk. Children of diplomats are excluded because their parents are here for the purpose of their jobs not for the purpose of immigration.

As I explained to Ranger, the 14th amendment was written prior to the concept of illegal immigration so no such nomenclature existed at its writing. If your parents were here, not as part of their jobs, but for the purpose of immigration than if you were born here you were granted citizenship because it was assumed your parents were here for the purpose of citizenship as were you. Understand or do I need to go more slowly?

Trump's EO should be blocked by any judge who reads it but if not I would expect Cheif Justice Rodgers will stand up for the constitution and block it.

Betta

The good news is that an EO is not necessary. There is no birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment. That BS started in the 1960's and was not the original intent of the writer of that section of the Constitution, Senator Jacob M. Howard of MI (1862-1871), who fully made it known the intent DOES NOT include illegals. Therefore, Trump would be UPHOLDING the original intent of the 14th Amendment, just as he should. RINO Ryan is ignorant about the Constitution and dead wrong about his assumptions on birthright citizenship. His reading comprehension skills are appalling. And that goes for anyone else who thinks the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. It doesn't.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

The section says this: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....

Since when does "and" mean "are"? Look closer at the clause and what you replied to me. Let's argue the principle, not the misunderstanding which created anchor babies and illegal immigration shall we?

The principle is as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now I'm going to do something, Pete that I rarely do, and dissect the principle.

Let's look at the first part, "All persons" this refers to all people with in the borders of the United States.

"born or naturalized", this refers to people born on this land. It also refers to the immigrant that achieved citizenship.

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,". This is the most controversial part. Today at work, I was involved in a heated argument on this part of the Amendment. It is assumed that if you are born in this country, or naturalized in this country, that you are under the jurisdiction of this country. That is not necessarily true. You can be born in this country but yet still subject to your country of origin. Such instances have already occured. I read a story of Jewish sons, and daughters who were escaping Nazi Germany, and had children here in America. At the time America had to return to Hitler's Germany, the Jewish children along with their parents, before World War II. The children along with their parents were killed in concentration camps established by Germany. Although the children were born here, they were not subject to the United States but subject to Germany. Roosevelt's State Department had to deport the parents with the children, which led to the death of these families. It was so sad, yet it was due to the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause that they could not stay.

"are citizens of the United States and the State where in they reside". This declares that the "persons" mentioned above are citizens of the United States and "the State wherein they reside"

That is about as far as I am going to go with the amendment.

Now let's be clear about what Trump is doing. He is going to issue an Executive Order based upon his administrations interpretation of the law, and enforce it by that interpretation. The Executive Order has not been signed yet, nor has it been written so we cannot dissect that yet. However, according to his speeches he has made on the subject, this is the first step towards Immigration Reform, which is needed badly.

The Constitution does not provide rules and regulation on Immigration, that power rests with Congress alone. However, the Constitution does claim that persons born or naturalized, and are subject to the United States are citizens. For example, Persons born in Puerto Rico, are citizens of the United States. And when Cuba was a territory of the United States, Cubans were citizens of the USA too. Once Cuba received independence, the Cubans became non citizens. However Cubans here in other states maintained their citizenship.

Now in the mid 1900s, illegal immigration sprung up as a defacto class of citizen. This was due to politicians who would do nothing about the problem. From the time of the potato famine in Ireland, to the slave labor of asians, to the immigration of the Italians and other immigrants, Ellis Island has more stories about immigrants than the Southwest has, it became a problem.

As the grandson of two immigrant families, we were always taught, that the United States is our country. For they left the old country never to return. From the Lithuanian side, to the Italian side, to the Irish side, we left these countries for the freedom of America. So it was important to us, to be citizens, not immigrants with legal permanent residence. Therefore in the past, it was expected that the immigrant gain citizenship.

Evil does as evil shall do. Soon the de facto society sprung up, under the umbrella of big business. Sweat shops, human trafficking, drugs, etc. began to make a fortune on the backs of immigrants not seeking citizenship. Trump himself, a descendant of an immigrant who became a citizen, is just following the way of other immigrants who legally became citizens.

We have argued racism. We argued racism left and right. We both agree that racism is evil and wrong. However, no matter how bad the classic white vs negro racism was, today the racism between an immigrant who gained citizenship, and the immigrant who is illegal, is worse and more vicious. You spoke how horrible it was for your ancestors centuries ago to suffer at the hands of a plantation "master", now look at what happens at sweatshops, and the prostitution rings. The plantation "master" is dead, but the sweat shop/pimps/drug dealers are real and here today. What the illegal immigrant goes through is horrendous.

Fault lies with the Supreme Court, the president and Congress. For in the past forty or more years, these politicians have refused to answer, clarify, or even engage in conversation about immigration. Fools who are evil, have made trillions of dollars on the backs of these poor people. 9/11 was an eye opener on what extreme lengths illegal immigrants will go to in order to be heard. These fools, have made millions on illegal immigration. Our enemies can send people over to this country, to gain a de facto citizenship and destroy us. That is a national security threat. That is what happened during 9/11. Anchor babies are one such example of how terrorists could get in.

Donald Trump is trying to close the loophole in the law. Not rewrite the law. He has no desire to rewrite the Constitution, but he has sworn to protect the country and us citizens within our borders. That is Article II of the Constitution. Since the Supreme Court has not ruled upon this clause in the 14th amendment, many respond to me that they feel as you do that all persons born and naturalized in this country are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But that is not what the clause is saying.

I suggest that we let Trump write the Executive order. Then sue the office of the president in Court, the Supreme Court and force the Court to do their job, which is to interpret the constitution. Once they decide, then Trump should rescind the order, and Congress will have to at that point reform Immigration. That is the proper way the government works. You, Pete like to pick on Trump for a variety of reasons, like I did Obama. However, when I charged Obama I backed it up with evidence. Here with Trump there is no evidence. What is evident is that we have an immigration problem and it is time that the Government step up.

In Trump's speech today, he presented facts from the Department of Homeland Security, and used their report. That report said seventy thousand dollars were spent by illegal immigrants to enter into the United States. Yet the Immigration department, has only collected ten thousand dollars of that seventy. Where did the sixty thousand go? To the human traffickers, drug cartels, and coyotes.

To my liberal friends out there I do want to ask you for a favor. Look at the words Trump says, and don't put anything into it. Just look at what he says. Don't read into any motive, or anything as such. Understand he is trying to do the job, that the democrats have failed to do when they had power and protect the citizen. Looking at Trump under that perspective you can only come to the conclusion that he is trying to help not hurt. However, if you are caught up in the media soap opera of the WWF or WCW or WWE rhetoric of drama, and you decide not on the facts but whether Trump is right or wrong on beating up Hulk Hogan or Vince McMahon in the ring, then you guys have totally lost your minds and are suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

I'm sorry Hillary Clinton is not Stephanie McMahon, and Chuck Schumer is not Triple H. By building the wall, reforming immigration, and stopping the caravans, Trump is protecting the United States. By doing nothing, 9/11 will happen again. But if Trump takes a strong stance against these people, maybe he will be able to break the international crime ring of the Mexican Cartels along with other threats against us citizens. Who knows? What good is Healthcare if the country that is working on it for you is no longer around?

Mark these words: If you stop Trump now, how many 9/11's will happen in the future?

Smedley_buzkill

US law at the time the Amendment was written specified "jurisdiction" as not owing allegiance to any foreign power. A wetback in this country in violation of our law is not subject to the jurisdiction as defined at the time the Amendment was ratified.
See the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Understand or do I need to go more slowly?
In US v Wong Kim Ark 1898 the Court specified that foreigners who were domiciled here were subject to the jurisdiction. Domiciled, according to Black's Law 1898 version, meant someone who maintained a PERMANENT legal residence here. Illegals cannot maintain a legal residence, permanent or otherwise.
Understand, or do I need to go more slowly?

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, CO

'For Pete's Sake' go slower Smedley!

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Bottom line;
Trump is going to correct a long standing immigration problem.
The democrats will not correct the problem, based on past performance, and their current agenda.