Trump Claims He Is ‘Seriously’ Considering Ending Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

[Pens1566]

It's kind of funny that the people who claim the 2nd amendment is crystal clear are also often the same people who are engaging in linguistic gymnastics to find ways to argue that people born in the US and subject to US jurisdiction are not born in the US and subject to US jurisdiction.

The 14th amendment is incredibly simple to understand by anyone not trying to find a way to keep out those dirty dirty foreigners. When you see a baby being born ask yourself two questions:

1) is that baby inside the borders of the US?
2) if that baby somehow committed a crime right now could the US legally arrest it?

If the answer to both of those is 'yes', then the baby is a US citizen. Basically the only people who are born in the US who are not citizens are the children of diplomats who enjoy diplomatic immunity.

And Texas would execute it, but only once it's born ...

 

[Vic]

Here you go. Didn't figure I needed to link for something so publicly available.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Arguably the most unambiguous amendment in the Constitution. Note: "All Persons." Doesn't get any clearer than that. All persons with the United States are guaranteed the protections of the Constitution and equal protection of the laws All persons.

BTW, the 14a is the basis of Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago, so be careful what you wish for.

 

[hal2kilo]

A quick google search turns up numbers in the hundreds of thousands of anchor babies born in the US every year. Lets assume the lowest number of a 100k. Those moms go into the hospital and have a baby, who pays that bill? When they leave the hospital where do they go? That infant citizen can't be put out on the street, where does that mom get the money for a place to stay? Where does she get the money for food? Do you think the majority of those family's transfer huge sums of money into their US bank accounts to pay all of those things?
If we assume a 10k bill for the birth and prenatal care, and 30k of expenses for the first year here, we're talking about four billion dollars.
Don't tell me illegal immigration and anchor babies are free, it's total bullshit and we both know it. We've been ignoring the problem for thirty or forty years and it's time it was dealt with. I don't like the way Trump is going about it, but if it forces congress to address the issue then it will end up being a net positive.

Money, money, money, money. You must be really concerned about the deficit and who caused it to grow by leaps and bounds then, right?

 

[Moonbeam]

So he's like every righty/troll on p&n?

None of the people who post here are the threat Trump is.

I believe that insanity is the attempt to by persons who were put down badly as children to seek love by being the assholes they were told they were as children. What a monster does then to seek love is to manifest more and more as a monster while psychologically manipulating people for praise. The monster wants to die so the real self can reemerge from the wreckage. The result is that in the unconscious wish for self destruction accompanied by massive denial, the journey to health will lead to a final moment of realization as nuclear war vaporizes his flesh. He needs to die to regain his health and he would rather die than remember his pain. This is the predicament we are all in, one from which we don't know how to save ourselves. The last thing we will do is listen to anybody who might know.

Trump just happens to be extremely sick and owing to his position, extremely dangerous to the human race. But he got elected and stays in office because we all have that death wish.

Just think how easy it is to save the world. All you have to do is forgive, surrender, and be happy. I'll count to three.......

 

[Maxima1]

Arguably the most unambiguous amendment in the Constitution. Note: "All Persons." Doesn't get any clearer than that. All persons with the United States are guaranteed the protections of the Constitution and equal protection of the laws All persons.

BTW, the 14a is the basis of Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago, so be careful what you wish for.

It wasn't everyone. The more you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment had been interpreted to not apply to Native people. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Native Americans who served in the armed forces during the First World War.

 

[Jhhnn]

If someone is here illegally in violation of our immigration laws then I'd argue they aren't "subject to our laws" otherwise they'd be in deportation procedings.

I'd also say your comprehension of the English language sucks since you took "shall not be infringed" to mean "infringe away since gun owners need to be flexible."

Don't be obtuse. Illegals are as subject to the laws as millions of people who smoke pot or speed on the highway.

 

[Jhhnn]

It wasn't everyone. The more you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment had been interpreted to not apply to Native people. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Native Americans who served in the armed forces during the First World War.

That arose because of the legal fiction that Indian reservations were separate nations.

 

[Jhhnn]

It wasn't everyone. The more you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment had been interpreted to not apply to Native people. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Native Americans who served in the armed forces during the First World War.

That arose because of the legal fiction that Indian reservations were separate nations.

 

[sportage]

Remember when Hillary called them deplorables? Well, kinda looks like Hillary hit the nail on the head, as it were.
Actually I think the idea of birth rights is a bit crazy. Becoming a citizen automatically just because one was born within the borders while becoming a legal citizen as an migrating immigrant takes a long time and lots of work and money.
But it is what it is. We have birth rights and the constitution guarantees that.

AND by the way.....
Why are they (the Trumpians) more than willing to tinker with the 14th amendment while decrying HANDS-OFF when it comes to the 2nd amendment?
IT'S ALL ABOUT CONSISTENCY, FOLKS.
If they can screw with one amendment, then they can screw with the other amendments as well.
What drives me crazy is not so much the actual laws or the need to correct them, what drives me nutz is the lack of CONSISTENCY.
If we funneled everything thru the rule of CONSISTENCY, then half of our problems would simply go away.
We'd have birth rights eliminated or at least redefined, and gun rights treated in the same way.
Limited birth rights "AND" hard core no exceptions background checks across the board.
Give me CONSISTENCY, or give me death.

 

[glenn1]

Remember when Hillary called them deplorables? Well, kinda looks like Hillary hit the nail on the head, as it were.
Actually I think the idea of birth rights is a bit crazy. Becoming a citizen automatically just because one was born within the borders while becoming a legal citizen as an migrating immigrant takes a long time and lots of work and money.
But it is what it is. We have birth rights and the constitution guarantees that.

AND by the way.....
Why are they (the Trumpians) more than willing to tinker with the 14th amendment while decrying HANDS-OFF when it comes to the 2nd amendment?
IT'S ALL ABOUT CONSISTENCY, FOLKS.
If they can screw with one amendment, then they can screw with the other amendments as well.
What drives me crazy is not so much the actual laws or the need to correct them, what drives me nutz is the lack of CONSISTENCY.
If we funneled everything thru the rule of CONSISTENCY, then half of our problems would simply go away.
We'd have birth rights eliminated or at least redefined, and gun rights treated in the same way.
Limited birth rights "AND" hard core no exceptions background checks across the board.
Give me CONSISTENCY, or give me death.

Difference is for most who have concerns about background checks, it's based on a performance concern like speed or cost that could be addressed and not the principle. Those who support unlimited illegal immigration would oppose any adjustment of birth citizenship rules on "principle" grounds no matter how logical they were. I guess when one is concerned with losing their slave wage labor of today and hopeful future voters of tomorrow then our immigration laws are just collateral damage they're willing to accept.

 

[SMOGZINN]

That arose because of the legal fiction that Indian reservations were separate nations.

More properly because they were not under the jurisdiction of the law, they were under the jurisdiction of tribe law (which is itself kind of under the jurisdiction of the law, but it gets fuzzy, and needed to be clarified).

 

[SMOGZINN]

Difference is for most who have concerns about background checks, it's based on a performance concern like speed or cost that could be addressed and not the principle. Those who support unlimited illegal immigration would oppose any adjustment of birth citizenship rules on "principle" grounds no matter how logical they were. I guess when one is concerned with losing their slave wage labor of today and hopeful future voters of tomorrow then our immigration laws are just collateral damage they're willing to accept.

I'm not sure I'm aware of anyone that supports unlimited illegal immigration.
Birthright citizen has a pretty huge limit to it. You have to be born here.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not sure I'm aware of anyone that supports unlimited illegal immigration.
Birthright citizen has a pretty huge limit to it. You have to be born here.

Yeah and it effectively creates a severe limit on removing the rest of the non-citizen illegal alien members of the family, sometimes to the point of making it impossible. To keep the 2A comparison it'd be like saying because one member of a family passed a background check (the birthright citizen) it would make removing firearms from any other member of the family near impossible even if they broke the law and would otherwise have their gun rights removed.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah and it effectively creates a severe limit on removing the rest of the non-citizen illegal alien members of the family, sometimes to the point of making it impossible.

Honestly only because it is easier and cheaper to just let the parents stay here and raise the child then to make him a ward of the state and pay for everything.

To keep the 2A comparison it'd be like saying because one member of a family passed a background check (the birthright citizen) it would make removing firearms from any other member of the family near impossible even if they broke the law and would otherwise have their gun rights removed.

Overall I think that anytime you try to compare a person to something being owned you are on the losing end of the argument.
And, BTW your argument doesn't even work. It is nearly impossible for them to remove a gun from my son because I broke the law.

 

[Vic]

Difference is for most who have concerns about background checks, it's based on a performance concern like speed or cost that could be addressed and not the principle. Those who support unlimited illegal immigration would oppose any adjustment of birth citizenship rules on "principle" grounds no matter how logical they were. I guess when one is concerned with losing their slave wage labor of today and hopeful future voters of tomorrow then our immigration laws are just collateral damage they're willing to accept.

If you had a legitimate argument to provide here, you wouldn't be avoiding the real discussion and instead resorting to ridiculous lies and paranoid straw men.
No one here has supported unlimited immigration or slave labor. What you're being told is that birthright citizenship is the law of the land, protected by the 14a of the Constitution, and that if you want to change that, an constitutional amendment is required. Because that's the law too.

 

[glenn1]

If you had a legitimate argument to provide here, you wouldn't be avoiding the real discussion and instead resorting to ridiculous lies and paranoid straw men.
No one here has supported unlimited immigration or slave labor. What you're being told is that birthright citizenship is the law of the land, protected by the 14a of the Constitution, and that if you want to change that, an constitutional amendment is required. Because that's the law too.

14A means what SCOTUS says it means. Let Trump pass his EO and see what they have to say.

 

[Vic]

14A means what SCOTUS says it means. Let Trump pass his EO and see what they have to say.

Within the context of this immigration discussion, I frequently see people who argue that they want our laws enforced through unlawful means. Usually because they are woefully ignorant of our laws. I'm not surprised to see that you're one of those.

 

[Moonbeam]

And Texas would execute it, but only once it's born ...

Which, of course means that even a fetus once on American soil becomes a citizen because it is a person.

 

[Jhhnn]

Difference is for most who have concerns about background checks, it's based on a performance concern like speed or cost that could be addressed and not the principle. Those who support unlimited illegal immigration would oppose any adjustment of birth citizenship rules on "principle" grounds no matter how logical they were. I guess when one is concerned with losing their slave wage labor of today and hopeful future voters of tomorrow then our immigration laws are just collateral damage they're willing to accept.

I do love the attribution of nefarious motive to people who accept the plain language reading of the 14th amendment. It's also amusing to watch you try to split hairs over the whole issue of where a person resides, as if a newborn infant has ever resided anyplace other than where they were just born...

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not sure I'm aware of anyone that supports unlimited illegal immigration.
Birthright citizen has a pretty huge limit to it. You have to be born here.

Well they must exist otherwise the right wouldn't have a valid argument! Surely you aren't implying that people, like Glenn, argument is bull shit!

 

[IronWing]

Not really.

Liar.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah and it effectively creates a severe limit on removing the rest of the non-citizen illegal alien members of the family, sometimes to the point of making it impossible. To keep the 2A comparison it'd be like saying because one member of a family passed a background check (the birthright citizen) it would make removing firearms from any other member of the family near impossible even if they broke the law and would otherwise have their gun rights removed.

Bull cocky!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Not really.

yeah really....deal with it

 

[glenn1]

I do love the attribution of nefarious motive to people who accept the plain language reading of the 14th amendment. It's also amusing to watch you try to split hairs over the whole issue of where a person resides, as if a newborn infant has ever resided anyplace other than where they were just born...

If a woman broke into your home and gave birth would the baby “reside” in your house?

 

[glenn1]

Within the context of this immigration discussion, I frequently see people who argue that they want our laws enforced through unlawful means. Usually because they are woefully ignorant of our laws. I'm not surprised to see that you're one of those.

Truth is the constitution means whatever SCOTUS says it means. Are you justify that Roe v. Wade on stuff That’s nowhere to be found in the constitution so they could just as easily rule it means exactly what you’re saying it does not mean.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's funny the same people who aruge the government is a bloated inefficient mess that cant handle numerous responsibilities should get to choose whether or not people born here should be citizens. Good luck getti g rid of the 14th, lol.

Read above, sure gleenie. SCOTUS can redo Roe v Wade, and while conservatives are busy partying the SCOTUS can throw a changeup on the second. Anything that's not a musket is illegal.