Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Those of us who have actually read the ****ing thing know better.

 

NOPE! Aliens, foreigners, Indians....are not foreign dignitaries.

 

Read the whole sentence and read the rest of the discussion, not just the snipped the Constitution-hating xenophobes tell you to read.

 

You haven't read a damn thing. The 84 page ARK opinion or the definition of legal citizen that @Lil Mike just posted by the lawmaker that wrote the 14th Amendment.

 

And I read what the rest of that discussion said. You and Lil Mike couldn't even finish the damned sentence.

 

Oh I have. You and your buddies just snip "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" from a Constitutional Amendment so as to justify the anchor babies of millions of shithole illegal aliens.

 

The Ark case had many twists and turns that make it difficult to use as a general case. When I refer to 14th amendment anchor babies I'm talking about a mother who comes here on a visitor visa (and often arranged by travel agencies for the purpose), gives birth, then returns with her newborn American citizen, though she herself is not and has no intention of being one. This goes on by the thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

There are ways to test allegiance. Have they been here a long time or have a green card? Do they show every intention to being an American? Do they participate in American traditions and activities? Do they recite and mean the Pledge of Allegiance when others do? Do they show every intention of hanging around after the birth? It can get messy, but it ain't rocket science.

 

I actually provided you an excerpt from the text.

Sigh

 

That case clarified what is meant by being under US jurisdiction.

You should read the decision.

 

I've snipped nothing. You guys have. As your quotes prove.

 

And failed to read the rest of the sentence. Or read the rest of the discussion . . . where they explicitly acknowledge that the children of immigrants will be citizens. Trust me, Patrick Stewart is far more ashamed of your refusal to read the ****ing thing than he is of me successfully doing so.

 

Well obviously when the first thing they do entering the country is breaking the law, and by extension, the founding document of the Country AKA the Constitution, that pretty much says they fail the allegiance test.

 

I read that ****ing decision years ago, front to back, and linked it here. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ILLEGAL ALIEN ANCHOR BABIES. You would know that if you read it and understood basic legalities.

 

I'm not going to hold my breath. We're on page 19 and you have not gotten a single thing right.

 

The Ark decision specified what is meant by being subject to US jurisdiction. That definition is straightforward and fully logical. That's the end of it.

I think your tests for allegiance are pretty much subjective - based on someone's opinion alone.

 

That decision confirmed the logical definition of what it means to be subject to US jurisdiction.

And, I note that nobody here has specified what it is that Trump wants.

 

Yeah, I have, many times in this thread. Trump wants the ARK precedent followed. I don't agree with it, but it would stop millions of shithole anchor babies from becoming citizens.

That decision was judicial activism. The lawmakers that wrote the 14th Amendment said exactly what the amendment was for...and they SPECIFICALLY excluded illegal aliens. The US government disagreed with the decision. Hopefully that decision will be corrected one day just like Roe v Wade.

Maybe you need a refresher? Watch until the very end at 3:06

 

That's a significant change to the constitution, obviously.

The 14th specifies those under US jurisdiction.

Game over - unless you want to propose a change to our constitution.

 

The ARK case was a change to the 14th Amendment, I agree with you on that. But Trump proposes enforcing what is left. There is absolutely NO reason for a change to enforce what is already on the books. The President is the Executive. It will be his job to enforce the 14th Amendment and doing so with an E.O. is his duty. (assuming he gets re-elected)

Get over it.

 

I don't agree that the Ark case was a change to the 14th in any way.

And that Trump thing you posted had him demanding a change in the 14th amendment, obviously.

 

I cannot disagree. There needs to be special concessions for cases like that.

Of course, the way to prevent that awful scenario from happening going forward would be to immediately deport the parents and the infant back to their country of origin, upon arrival. That's what should have been happening all along.

Let me ask you this: Do you think that our current policy of granting birthright citizenship to people who have illegally entered our country for that purpose is a rational policy that is, on par, beneficial to our country? And, do you think that the lure of this birthright citizenship policy has caused people to make a really dangerous trip to try to enter our country illegally? Finally, do you think the success rate of people who try justifies the carnage and death of those who fail?

 

As I said the Ark case has a number of twist and turns and sidetracks that make it hard to use as a general case. First it was muddied by the Chinese exclusion act. Secondly it was muddied by Ark's parents residing in the US for a length of time so it could be said they were under the jurisdiction of and had allegiance to even though they were not actual citizens (which isn't required for allegiance). They later moved back to China but that does not prima facie mean they didn't have allegiance to the US before.

On the other hand the supreme court made a general all inclusive ruling, but that is not the end of it because that general ruling was wrong and subject to being overturned

My tests for allegiance are probably not complete but are not unreasonable. Most court cases are decided through a degree of subjectivity and opinion.

 

The focus in this thread seems to be illegals and that makes your argument 1o00% correct. However the anchor baby controversy entails much more than illegals, It has been a long standing problem with mothers coming here on perfectly legal visitor visas, giving birth, and then returning home never having intended to have any sort of allegiance to the US.

 

No, it does not do that in the least.

 

Yes, it was, although it didn't have to be. If the court thought Ark deserved to be a citizen it could have easily ruled that when Ark was born his parents were under the jurisdiction of the US. But they just ignored that aspect and shoved it under the rug and made an all inclusive general ruling -- wrongly I might add.