Trump vows to end birthright citizenship.

Are you here illegally ?

If not, this doesn't apply.

 

Don't kid yourself. He needs 34 states to agree to change the Constitution.

 

he can do anything he likes.

Congress would have to sue him to stop it in Federal court

if Obama can permanently defer deportation for millions of illegals and give them SS numbers, Trump can suspend birthright citizenship for the children of illegals and tourists.

 

legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally

 

Yes, but my memory on this phrase in case law and historical background is that it applies to those owing an active allegiance to a foreign power. Specifically diplomats and those "sojourners" who don't claim the desire to remain or don't desire to pledge allegiance to the States.

Common law won't help much either. Subjects of the King weren't ties easily severable and common law follows the same. You're born here, you are a subject.

I think it will take a constitutional amendment or be perpetually mired in court legislative back and forth.

Cheers
Labour

 

Well it will probably bounce around the courts for years after passing such a law, since there is no chance President Obama would ever sign it. And frankly, even if he would sign it I'm not sure this Congress would ever pass such a bill. So this is years in the future.

 

Does Trump know what is involved? It would probably take a Constitutional amendment. That means getting 2/3rds of the House and 2/3rds of the senate to pass it and for it to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Its not an easy process. It would take 290 votes in House, 67 in the senate and 38 states ratifying it.

 

While Trump's suggestion has some validity, it is too late.
Besides, being a "citizen" makes one a subject, and originally, Americans rejected being subjects.

In reality, we, as a nation, at the very least, have rebelled against America's God, which is "nature's God" according to the Declaration of Independence.
And, therefore,
The God of mother nature has put in motion His Judgment as recorded by Isaiah, chapter 5, where He breaks down all our walls and hedges and raises an ensign to the nations to come here and loot us.
This is where we are. We still have time to throw out our mental garbage and replace it with the Words of Life Romans 12:1-2

If we do not repent, the flood of people will escalate as in the quote below. Do we really want to continue this Judgment upon us?

They not be weary nor stumble among them;
none shall slumber nor sleep;
neither shall the girdle of their loins be loosed,
nor the latchet of their shoes be broken:
Whose arrows are sharp,
and all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs shall be counted like flint,
and their wheels like a whirlwind:
Their roaring shall be like a lion,
they shall roar like young lions: yea, they shall roar,
and lay hold of the prey, and shall carry it away safe, and none shall deliver it.
And in that day they shall roar against them like the roaring of the sea:
and if one look unto the land, behold darkness and sorrow, and the light is darkened in the heavens thereof.

 

We? You mean the people who risked breaking the law, right?

 

Excellent, when do you leave for Europe?

I don't know that. I was born here and I got a birth certificate an Social Security number. I had to be born here, thus birthright citizenship.

I didn't have to wait for years in line or join the military to earn my citizenship.

If this system is in any way changed from how it is now I don't want it.

- - - Updated - - -

No I mean everyone who was born here since the beginning.

 

They are not concerned with constitutional rules. They have violated all the Rights of the American People for a long time. So, why be limited by what they have been using against us for 200 years?

See Lysanders Spooner's CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY http://jim.com/treason.htm

[video=youtube;ewtA3qcm3fo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewtA3qcm3fo[/video]

 

Correct. It is very uncommon for a country to consider as lawful citizens any baby that happens to pop out within its borders. I believe this came to be fairly recently in our country and only because of the way a court interpreted something. It is certainly not the designed result of any law or amendment.

Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015

Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

States that this Act shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of its enactment.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/140

So a court does something silly, then Congress spends a couple of generations wringing its hand in self-imposed impotency, and finally Trump steps up and suddenly things begin to happen. What is up with that?

 

The bad thing that has happened, the Constitution is written in fairly plain English. But it has become to mean what the 9 black robed people who are on the SCOTUS says it means. There are times when the language of the constitution says something just the opposite of what the SCOTUS just said it meant.

 

And yet, the American Indians today who are descendants of those run out from their homes and the lands they lived on, were just moved around to various places within the country, and they are still here. What makes a Mexican American who is a descendant from the same experience any different? And if you pass the law, are you going to deport the American Indians who were born here as well? Since it was the whites who showed up last, where is the moral compass that says they are entitled to birthright citizenship over those who were here before them? The real illegals in this country are the whites; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImgW2GVC-hE

 

IMO, the provision ending several Amendments, including and specifically the 14th A, could be understood to correct misconceptions to what was intended. It was never designed to allow children of people from ANYPLACE, to have children in the US and then be the responsibility (jurisdiction) of someplace other than their parents. The problem however is, no law can be retroactive......

 

He can promise anything he wants, he will Never be in the position to do it, simply more crowing from the Farside.

 

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST

India's population density: 426 people per square kilometer
U.S. population density: 35 people per square kilometer

Yeah, turning into India is a real worry.... :eyeroll:

Never mind that Singapore -- a first-world, very wealthy nation -- has a population density of 7,814 people per square kilometer! Suggesting that population density alone is not actually a problem.

In the short term, it would probably save a few billion a year.

Never mind that people fleeing those countries are exactly the sort of people we want. During the Cold War, we gave citizenship to people fleeing Communist countries. Was that a mistake?

What are you talking about? Any money sent out of this country by immigrants would be after-tax income, not pre-tax.

Your case is far from persuasive. You ignore the long-term benefits of immigration. The relatively low cost of illegal immigration. You seem to think the driving factor in illegal immigration is the desire to create anchor babies, when in fact it's driven more by economic desperation, or fleeing violence, neither of which would be affected by your proposal.

Want to reduce illegal immigration? Impose stiff penalties on people who hire illegals, and assist their home countries in creating a safe, stable environment containing sufficient economic opportunity to keep their people at home.

 

Here is what I would do, its true, we can' end the child's citizenship without an Amendment made to the Constitution but:
1. Deport anyone else whose an illegal alien here, including children brought in and are not born here, deporting them back to their parents nation of origin.
2. To register in school the parent(s) must provide their immigration status at some point say on legally required immunization forms or something, then go after the parent if they are not here legally. The child can opt to stay here if they are given to a legal resident alien or go into foster care etc.
3. Open up immigration to those serving in an armed force for a minimum of eight years in good standing or in wounded and disabled enough action to get benefits. And allow some kind of restricted residency for foreigners who go through proper channels to come here good for up to eight years per registration.
4. Make being her illegally a Federal Felony and that will bar them even if they are allowed to leave and not be in prison for it, forever from coming to the nation legally. The second offense they go to prison for a minimum sentence.

 

Fool? WKA

That resort is the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which can be changed very easily and is that which every admin makes policy as to whom they determine to be born citizens.

I ask, who is really the fool?

 

If you are a citizen being under the complete jurisdiction of the United States then they are born citizens.

 

WRONG. No amendment is needed. The CRA of 1866 is the law, which can easily be changed, Try reading and understanding the WKA decision.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, only a change to the 1866 CRA is needed or a simple interpretation change in the admins policy. Nothing more.

The amendment does not say that Gray in WKA points that out with the following

As usual you espouse ignorance as though it is fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, from WKA

Try looking at the 1866 CRA.

- - - Updated - - -

Statutes are easily changed, as noted by their numerous changes over the years.

 

Points of note

"

In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.


concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Who is and who is not a citizen is spelled out in the 8 US Code1401

So we change US Code by legislation to specially state that the parents must be here legally and under the complete jurisdiction of the United States, ie legally and for the purpose of becoming naturalized citizens, that gets challenged and gets a case up the chain to the SCOTUS, the original intent of the congress is presented to SCOTUS and the law upheld.

 

It doesn't even establish a right for the child to remain here unless they hold a US Passport stating they are US Citizens. A birth certificate isn't a declaration of US Citizenship.

 

I would like to see the mighty uproar if he refused and his reasoning for not signing this common sense change to our laws.

 

I would add making being here illegally and using any form of false government identification document a serious felony with some prison time per offense, but not if the child is a minor the parents would get nailed for that child's fake identification. Then toss the parents out with felony crimes this will bar them from ever seeking citizenship. The children if born here could stay if a legal guardian or foster care is used OR the parents could take them. This would break up families but destroy anchor babies as an option while given the benefit to the child under a simple reading of the 14th Amendment. And could be done with little fuss legally just a simple bill ordering the law enforcement to press charges in all cases. In time parents will stop maybe coming here to drop babies.