Ending Birthright Citizenship

[TheXFactor]

His grandpa was an illegal immigrant and Fred was an anchor baby.

Donald Trump has no birth right without the 14th amendment.

[GrenadaRoger]

As Grenada Roger pointed out, the 14th Amendment isn't as clear on that as many are claiming.

Anyway, there isn't a gray area here.

Born to US citizen parent? You're a citizen.

Born to non-citizen parents who have official permission to live in the country legally? You're a citizen.

Born to non-citizen parents who are here illegally or as tourists? You're not a citizen.

Seems fair and straightforward to me.

Except it’s not how in practice the way it’s been since the dawn of time. You are giving the government the ability to strip away citizenship in a way never done before. It’s dangerous.

Can’t cling to the constitution and the way it’s been interpreted for 200+ years and suddenly decide to start making changes.

Oh Really? Try comparing Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education. In 1896 Plessey upheld separate but equal as the law of the land; but 50 years later Brown held
opposite...that's just one example of a change, there are many more

so of course there can be changes of law and intepretations

[GrenadaRoger]

I understand the 14th amendment is key here...

"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," the 1868 amendment begins.


thus the requirements for citizenship are two: 1. born in the United States or naturalized; and 2. subject to the jurisdiction of the United State.

A child of a person here temporarily because of tourism or illegal entry might not be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US

its up to the courts to decide...

This argument is absolutely asinine. Under this arguement, any alien in the United States could not be prosecuted for any crimes committed while they are here. How could they be if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United Stated criminal courts? The only people exempt therefrom are ambassadors and royalty, who have diplomatic immunity.

There are strong arguments for and against birthright citizenship, but only a Constitutional amendment can change it.

I believe you may be applying a meaning to the words "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" that was other than that intended by the Congress when it passed the 14th amendment. To define what the Congress meant by that, the courts usually review the congressional records of hearings, committee meeting notes, and floor debates and other records contemporary to when a law was passed.

[Dan Druff]

Ignoring the Constitutional and legal issues, I'd like to hear someone's moral defense for making citizens out of kids born here to parents here illegally.

Why should they be granted citizenship? Because their parents are standing on US soil when they're born? Why should that mean anything?

When the US accepts immigrants, part of this acceptance comes from the US calculating that they can handle the increase in population that these immigrants (and their descendants) bring.

Illegal immigrants ignore that process, and just say, "We're coming here anyway, we don't care whether it's allowed", and then suddenly the US has the burden of new citizens they didn't want or expect, simply due to where the baby is born?

Sorry, doesn't add up.

Think of it this way:

Say you're on vacation, and while you're gone, a homeless pregnant couple sneaks into your house and lives in a spare room. Then their child is born about 2 days later.

You get home from your weeklong vacation and find them there. You attempt to have them removed, and they assert that at the very least, their new child has a right to live in that room in your house, since they were born there. They point to the fact that it's illegal to evict a tenant because they "added another person" due to having a child.

That's basically what's happening here.

A child should not derive any kind of benefit from the illegal actions taken by their parents. The child should obviously not be punished, but at the same time, the child should not gain additional rights or privileges which came from those illegal actions.

[Dan Druff]

Trump was actually smart to bring this up so close to the midterms. He knows what he's doing.

The same blue collar voter who "didn't understand the Democrats anymore" and voted for Trump will be supporting Republicans again in the midterms, as they tend to agree with him on these type of issues, whereas they see Democrats as out of touch.

Yes, Trump pisses off the left and center-left when he says things like this, but he's not looking to appeal to those people. He's looking to get the center and center-right voter out to the polls next week, and it's probably working.

[limitles]

Ignoring the Constitutional and legal issues, I'd like to hear someone's moral defense for making citizens out of kids born here to parents here illegally.

Why should they be granted citizenship? Because their parents are standing on US soil when they're born? Why should that mean anything?

When the US accepts immigrants, part of this acceptance comes from the US calculating that they can handle the increase in population that these immigrants (and their descendants) bring.

Illegal immigrants ignore that process, and just say, "We're coming here anyway, we don't care whether it's allowed", and then suddenly the US has the burden of new citizens they didn't want or expect, simply due to where the baby is born?

Sorry, doesn't add up.

Think of it this way:

Say you're on vacation, and while you're gone, a homeless pregnant couple sneaks into your house and lives in a spare room. Then their child is born about 2 days later.

You get home from your weeklong vacation and find them there. You attempt to have them removed, and they assert that at the very least, their new child has a right to live in that room in your house, since they were born there. They point to the fact that it's illegal to evict a tenant because they "added another person" due to having a child.

That's basically what's happening here.

A child should not derive any kind of benefit from the illegal actions taken by their parents. The child should obviously not be punished, but at the same time, the child should not gain additional rights or privileges which came from those illegal actions.

In what world does this happen? As far as I know someone who has broken and entered your home is going to be a police case. Whether or not they've had a child in your home means nothing.

Also, you don't know if the child of tourists or illegal immigrants will turn out to be thugs or geniuses.
Where you drop is where you're from.

[MumblesBadly]

Honestly, I've always found birthright citizenship to be odd.

Why should the location your parents are physically standing in at the time of your birth determine your citizenship?

If you think about it logically (ignoring the current argument of what the Constitution does or does not say), your citizenship should be a product of two factors:

1) The citizenship of your parents

2) The country where your parents currently live

But #2 should only be considered when your parents are established in that foreign country legally. Otherwise your birth is placing an unintended and unfair burden upon that country. Immigration control is largely resource control. If your parents snuck in and you happen to be born on that country's soil, you shouldn't have any "rights" to that country, just as you shouldn't if your parents are temporarily visiting that country as tourists.

Another factor being mostly ignored here comes from the fact that illegal immigrant related crime often comes from the second generation. In most cases, those who are risking a lot to come here are ernestly looking for work and a better life, and aren't interested in committing crimes. However, their children are a different story. Whether born here or brought here as children, these kids don't have the same appreciation for the value of hard work and building a better life, and instead tend to grow up in areas filled with criminal elements, and are easily influenced in that direction. I don't fear the 35-year-old woman who crosses the border to work in the fields or as a cleaning lady. I fear her 15-year-old son, especially after he ages a few more years.

In short, I don't see anything wrong with, "If you were born here because your parents snuck into this country, you should have the same citizenship as they do."

Are you aware that a large percentage of the Jews who immigrated to Palestine from Europe during the 1930s and ‘40s when it was British mandate state were illegal immigrants?

[ErickAA]

I hope everyone who has posted in this thread realizes this is just a political ploy to get some approval ratings and there is no serious intention by anyone to get rid of birthright citizenship.

I do find it ironically amusing though when people from other countries that don't allow birthright citizenship (which is most countries) get on a high horse and criticize the US's immigration policy, when this one factor all by itself makes the US's immigration policy 1000000000000000x better than their own, which is why everyone is still trying to come here in record numbers, despite all the empty, nonsense rhetoric about how horrible and racist the US is.

[MumblesBadly]

I hope everyone who has posted in this thread realizes this is just a political ploy to get some approval ratings and there is no serious intention by anyone to get rid of birthright citizenship.

I do find it ironically amusing though when people from other countries that don't allow birthright citizenship (which is most countries) get on a high horse and criticize the US's immigration policy, when this one factor all by itself makes the US's immigration policy 1000000000000000x better than their own, which is why everyone is still trying to come here in record numbers, despite all the empty, nonsense rhetoric about how horrible and racist the US is.

No shit, Captain Obvious! That's why Trump and any GOPers who support him over this matter are disingenuous fucktards. Including Ted Cruz. At least the Ted Cruz of 2018 versus the Ted Cruz of 2011.

[Skip to 5:45 on this video:]

[FPS_Russia]

Your guide to understanding the 2018 election.


Sheldon- More immigration and division
Bloomberg - More immigration and division
Steyer- More immigration and division
Soros- More immigration and division
Private prison lobbyists- More profit from immigration, division and child separation at their border facilities..
All other corporate lobbyist- More immigration and division for lower wages.

Never forget the entire MSM is a profit driven corporation and war is very profitable for them. God help us.
iirc $700 a night per kid so yes Trump will sign an executive order on longer child separation.

All entities that matter want more immigration which means more tension between the races which means more crime.
This is to keep you distracted and from organizing a resistance. Before Trump everyone was against this and we
called it Neoliberalism.

FPS how do you know, Steyer looks so sincere? If he was sincere he would be talking about the Palestinians and speaking against the apartheid in Israel and the insane defense spending.

Not only do they not talk about it, this whole charade is to keep you from noticing much less resisting either.

Factoid: Soros isn't the only guy to have an open society organization.

 

https://www.khodorkovsky.com/an-even...n-russia-club/

[Daly]

Except it’s not how in practice the way it’s been since the dawn of time. You are giving the government the ability to strip away citizenship in a way never done before. It’s dangerous.

Can’t cling to the constitution and the way it’s been interpreted for 200+ years and suddenly decide to start making changes.

Oh Really? Try comparing Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education. In 1896 Plessey upheld separate but equal as the law of the land; but 50 years later Brown held
opposite...that's just one example of a change, there are many more

so of course there can be changes of law and intepretations

Of course this stuff can change, just not by an executive order.

[GrenadaRoger]

Guys guys! The president told a lie!


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/u...p_id=693823800

I like the way they worded that to make it sound like most of Europe (many others in the Western Hemisphere) was included when no European country allows it. Very clever.

u dum



Countries Who Offer Birthright Citizenship
1 Antigua and Barbuda
2 Argentina
3 Barbados
4 Belize
5 Bolivia
6 Brazil
7 Canada
8 Chile
9 Cuba
10 Dominica
11 Ecuador
12 El Salvador
13 Fiji
14 Grenada
15 Guatemala
16 Guyana
17 Honduras
18 Jamaica
19 Mexico
20 Nicaragua
21 Panama
22 Paraguay
23 Peru
24 Saint Kitts and Nevis
25 Saint Lucia
26 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
27 Trinidad and Tobago
28 United States
29 Uruguay
30 Venezuela

only 30 out of 194 countries worldwide...and of those 30, only 2, USA & Canada, are considered developed countries by the international monetary fund

the USA & Canada are out of step with convention

[FPS_Russia]

I'm shocked Trump has chain migration on whitehouse.gov.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/...ain-migration/

This is how they tell us 45,000 immigrants and it's really a million plus.


Now that he understands the real goal, more immigration and division, He doesn't talk about CM

Just in
but does talk about authorizing US troops to shoot Mexicans if they throw rocks. Just in time for Steyer's
"we're all dreamers" puppets to take power.

It's all a game where the US tax payers get the turmoil and pay for it plus interest.

If there's one piece of advice to focus on, money out of politics. Peace and unity's their greatest enemy and that'll never happen w their puppets in charge.

iirc the Chinese are really gaming the CM loophole.

[tony bagadonuts]

Oh Really? Try comparing Plessey v Ferguson to Brown v Board of Education. In 1896 Plessey upheld separate but equal as the law of the land; but 50 years later Brown held
opposite...that's just one example of a change, there are many more

so of course there can be changes of law and intepretations

Of course this stuff can change, just not by an executive order.

Sure it can, the process at least. If Trump signs the XO it will be immediately challenged by numerous states' AG's and would likely be fast tracked onward and upward.

[limitles]

Your constitution, your bill of rights, you are living in the past. It's hysterical that a nation stands by 200 year old ideas. Only a bible thumping group of idiots would continue with this.
Losers, or idiots take your pick

[limitles]

Of course this stuff can change, just not by an executive order.

Sure it can, the process at least. If Trump signs the XO it will be immediately challenged by numerous states' AG's and would likely be fast tracked onward and upward.

It is written.....pfffft
Oh Trump has veto power, oh then there are states rights, oh and what did Jefferson say........
Drop Dead America

[tony bagadonuts]

Your constitution, your bill of rights, you are living in the past. It's hysterical that a nation stands by 200 year old ideas. Only a bible thumping group of idiots would continue with this.
Losers, or idiots take your pick

20% of Canada's GDP comes from US exports, which make up around 73% of Canada's total exports.

So you're welcome.

[limitles]

Your constitution, your bill of rights, you are living in the past. It's hysterical that a nation stands by 200 year old ideas. Only a bible thumping group of idiots would continue with this.
Losers, or idiots take your pick

20% of Canada's GDP comes from US exports, which make up around 73% of Canada's total exports.

So you're welcome.

That has zero to do with your Puritanical ways and sheer population. It stands to reason that the most gutless clueless group of humans wouldn't venture far off the comfortable path. And were sent packing for the record

I'd give up everything monetarily rather than lie through my teeth at how well things are going.
suck on that phony

And try to change the subject once again....the lamest tactic perpetuated by fools

Man have you dropped in the ranks.....You're a hopeless fool and I don't care for your opinion
ever again.

[tony bagadonuts]

20% of Canada's GDP comes from US exports, which make up around 73% of Canada's total exports.

So you're welcome.

That has zero to do with your Puritanical ways and sheer population. It stands to reason that the most gutless clueless group of humans wouldn't venture far off the comfortable path. And were sent packing for the record

I'd give up everything monetarily rather than lie through my teeth at how well things are going.
suck on that phony

And try to change the subject once again....the lamest tactic perpetuated by fools

Man have you dropped in the ranks.....You're a hopeless fool and I don't care for your opinion
ever again.

Les, your lack of depth is astounding. Try educating yourself a little, might I suggest The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman, and The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engles.

Come back if you're ready to have a real discussion, until then go fuck yourself.

[Mintjewlips]

In all seriousness, people are coming to this country to birth babies because its allowed, it's not that complicated, if the government makes it illegal it will decrease this activity.

The only thing that keeps a ponzi scheme going is more money being contributed to the scheme. I say keep em coming and legalize them all, it's pretty much the only way I'm ever going to see a social security check, so :whynot .......