Trump renews threat to end ' rediculous' birthright citizenship

Leave it to a Trumper to praise one who is philosophical about horseshit.

 

Wait...Constitutional Amendments can be outdated?

Like the Second with the militia that no longer exists?

 

America is ruled y the Constitution not English common law

I honestly cant understand how liberals can support packing America with randomly selected anchor babies in order to circumvent an orderly immigration system

 

You need to read the ruling.

Huh?

 

Chinese women along with other foreignrs come to America just to have a chind that becomes a US citizen

Its insane that America allows that to happen

 

I don't agree. My family has been in the land that became this country for 400 years, so I think you should go back to at least three grandparents minimum...

See the problem here? Once you start arguing about what makes a citizen based on birth right, you can exclude whomever you want. The 14th amendment was designed to avoid this very type of definition that was already used to exclude slaves. As in, their ancestors weren't from here so they aren't citizens even if they have children here.

If you start doing putting these types of requirements on citizenship, it won't end well at all. Your intentions may be good, but it will be used for bad purposes. That's a guarantee.

 

Dont like the US Constitution you are more than welcome to leave

 

Sorry hon

Not the way it works, einstein

 

Does it scare you, princess?

 

And yet, hundreds of countries get along just fine without it.

 

They arent as great as the USA

You want to model yourself after some commie country, might be easier just to move there

 

As much as I would like to see an end to birthright citizenship, you (and I) are going to be disappointed when this goes absolutely nowhere without an amendment. One can find a smattering of Constitutional scholars who agree with you, but the vast majority do not.

 

There use to be a time before the 1940's that when a foreign country abused or failed to protect U.S. citizens abroad a U.S. Navy warship would appear of the coast and the U.S. Marines would go ashore and break a few bones and break things. They were punitive action small wars. The United States still had jurisdiction over its citizens.

There's a reason why Mexico has an Embassy in D.C. and 50 Mexican consulates throughout America. Just in California there are 10 Mexican consulates aloan.
http://www.mexonline.com/consulate.htm

Mexico still has jurisdiction there of over its citizens and the Mexican government made it clear that anchor babies are Mexican citizens,.

 

No, you have it wrong.

What you are describing is called Imperialism. In other words, no matter where our people go they are protected by force. That's what the Roman's did. And they were an empire even in their so called "republic" days. And I doubt you would accept Mexico showing up and blowing up a few things if they felt we "abused" their citizens, hence why it's not about rule of law or order but rule of strength, which is what dictators and empires do.

Jurisdiction is always local. No matter your citizenship you are subject to the laws of the land you are in, be them local or national.

 

Uh huh, the ruling you are referring to doesn't help you.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v_wong_kim_ark

While you may agree with the dissenters, your definition of what subject to a foreign power isn't what the court found.

 

Hey dude, I've read the *******n case years ago and I know this topic like the back of my hand. Ark HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANCHOR BABIES OF ILLEGALS.

Can you read????

Then read the original hand written opinion. You may learn something but I doubt it.

 

Amend the constitution then.

 

No

Just read it correctly

 

It’s in plain English. It says ANYONE born on US soil is a citizen. You will need an amendment to change that. Sorry.

 

I would like to recommend a book authored by a neocon, Max Boots.
The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power
https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Wars-Peace-Small-American/dp/0465064930

Most of these small wars were punitive action, "Crush and Bolt" when a foreign government abused Americasn citizens abroad or failed to protect American citizen in their country.

Before 1941 the United States never had an alliance with any other country like the European countris had that led up to the stupidest war ever fought during the 20th Century the First World War.

Before WW ll America was always isolationist and nationalist.
Having an alliance with another country could get you sucked into a stupid war.

If you were around and old enough from 1960 to 1965 you remember hearing SEATO all of the time..
That alliance got America sucked into a shooting war in Southeast Asia in particular Vietnam.
The revisionist never mention SEATO in our classrooms today.

In 1963 what was being said throughout the world, "If SEATO fails...NATO is likely to fail."

 

“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

 

Which means “physical presence inside US borders”

This was settled in plyler v doe. Anyone inside US borders is subject to US jurisdiction, except
Foreign diplomats with immunity. Hence the plain English wording of the 14th amendment confers citizenship to anyone at all born on US soil. The only exceptions are foreign diplomats and invading armies.

 

I

I gave your post a like not because I neceassarily agree but you make an intelligent civilized argument.

I do understand that yes my plan could be the slippery slope but illegals creating instant citizens and we need to stop the anchor baby nonsense.

So your relatives were here 400 ago, that is impressive. At 400 years ago mind were still fights Russians, Turks, Poles, and other forms of invading Muslims.

 

If by jurisdiction you mean control the n I say no. Because so many Mexicans are here Medco has an interest in theirvwell beinh.