Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Maybe pass a law that if the child (born in the U.S. from foreign parents) is allowed by the government to remain in the U.S. for a certain amount of time (maybe 4 to 6 years), they would be considered citizens.
Meaning if the government allows them to stay, or does not try with much effort to deport the child to the country of its parents.

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to prevent there from being permanent second-class persons in the country. Emphasis on "permanent" (or long-term).

I think at least some period of living in the country and "naturalization" should be required before they get citizenship.
If they are not imminently going to get deported, but are allowed to stay, then they should get citizenship.

 

LOL! Seriously???

You only read the SECOND have of my post??

 

If that is your wish, you do it either through legislation or through the courts, not by executive order as Trump is proposing in making new law in which neither Congress agrees with via said legislation, 8 USC 1401, or the 14th amendment. But don't be suprised that even a conservative Supreme Court will strike you down on this issue, except maybe Alito and Thomas.

 

You seriously think there is some reason I have to respond to all of your post in each of my posts?

 

That is true.

 

Isn't that what you are doing by proposing this law?

 

Then you need to tell that to one Donald J Trump because he thinks he can change the law by Executive Order. Of course, he will pivot from that position once it is met with extreme legal challenges calling Democrats obstructionists. And his followers will bow down to his feet and praise him like some sort of God, swearing their fidelity to the man, not the US Constitution.

 

I don't need to look at a damn thing. I've known this issue for years. I've read the ARK case front to back, all 84 pages....years ago. Linked it here. I know what it says and what it doesn't say and it damn sure doesn't say the offspring of illegal aliens are citizens. To the contrary, it says the offspring of legal residents are....based upon English Common Law, not what the drafters of the 14th Amendment said. This is just one of the first cases of judicial activism. English Law has no place here.

 

He's not changing anything, he's following the Ark precedent. All you lefties claim it's the law of the land, so deal with it.

 

the hell he is not. Trump is making his own laws through Executive order PERIOD. And if you read the Wong Kim Ark Case, it pretty much assured the doctrine of jus soli not jus sanguinis.

 

So you now agree, their already US citizens, otherwise no law needed!

 

Just to point out, there are really two separate issues at play. What the text of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution says, and specific federal law.
That specific federal law would first need to be changed. But that is far easier to do than to make any change to the Constitution.

The Left seems to be arguing that the law cannot be changed, because of what they believe the Fourteenth Amendment says (or what they think it means).

 

I don't think you understand the case at all. You may have read it, but I doubt seriously you understood all the nuances with which that case was dealing. The case pretty much affirmed the doctrine of jus soli. Do you understand what Jus Soli means in a legal and Constitutional text? No, you don't. You are simply parroting what Trump says. Nothing more, nothing less.

If Trump is elected to the WH, he will do one of two things after he signs that executive order. first, he will pivot and try to claim Democrats are obstructionists. Remember, his own administration tried this in 2018 or 2019 by his then national security advisor, Michael Anton, and even half of the GOP said no way Jose to Trump. His base will believe that more than the legal argument. If he tries the legal argument, that argument is weak and flawed. Not only will it affect illegal immigrants and their children, but it will also affect the legal immigrants as well and create a second-class citizenship among those children who can be denied even basic services or even military service if Trump has his way. And that will violate the 14th Amendment including the equal under the law doctrine. Trump, quite frankly is using the issue to go after DeSantis by going more right than DeSantis. And DeSantis will do likewise in order to get the GOP nomination.

 

LOL - When I answered your question and then you cut out the answer, it does make me wonder about you!

 

His argument can't be so complex that you can't just state it here.

I don't tend to like vids for legal work (or anything else, really). And, Trump NEVER speaks clearly and consistently to a specific point. So, I want to see a clear argument in writing.

The Ark precedent was pretty dang clear that anyone PRESENT in the US comes under US jurisdiction.

I'm ignoring the special circumstances of being inside embassies, being ambassadors and their families touring America, or having other such special status exempting the individual from US jurisdiction.

 

Is there any authority that you can cite in support of this novel interpretation of yours?

 

Spoken like someone with absolutely zero legal training (as if that were not already obvious).

 

For those wondering, four of T****'s kids had foreign born mothers. DEPORT THEM!!!!!!

 

So the Crown in England should still be ruling us, eh? Thanks for your super intelligent contributions

 

Like the diplomat's newborn son is not a citizen, neither is someone born in the U.S. to a mother that simply came here to give birth and has no allegiance to the United States nor resides in any state.

 

This is all pretty much correct. But as I said the situation in the 1860s cannot be compared to today even though the 14th amendment, written in the 1i860s, does still apply today. It is true that anyone coming into an American state back then could just settle in and be a citizen. But a mother who came here on a boat, gave birth to an offspring, and returned by boat a week later was not a citizen and neither was her offspring.

 

So, your approach is to change the subject. Got it. Your representation of who supports it doesn't make a case that supports your insistence that the Brennan footnote should continue to be seen as legitimate. I have, many times suggested and written here that illegal aliens are this centuries slaves necessary to support the progressive democratic party plantation. Democrats actively support illegals working here so they can abuse them. Take the rhetoric of democrats in congress... There are many, "who else will pick food, who else will clean homes, do the yard work, blah blah blah..." calls, from elected democrats who insist that they be allowed to have these slaves.

So here's the deal. Anchor babies should end. Folks who are in the US illegally, and even legally absent citizenship should not have citizenship extended to their offspring. Again, they are still citizens of other nations, and as such, their offspring are also still citizens of those nations. Jus Sanguine.

 

He wasn't, as established in the context of the case, his citizenship was still valid. Read the dang case notes. And it still didn't extend citizenship to "those not under the jurisdiction of the United States". That didn't change until Brennan wrote the footnote. The attribution of citizenship by footnote, I would think should be something you would normally be against. I mean, what if someone like Alito stuck something into a ruling that said, for example, that women who attempt to have an abortion lose their citizenship. Would you be on board with this approach to legislative jurisprudence?

 

Hmm, why bother, you won't understand it any better the second time around.

 

It appears your copy of the Constitution has been tainted by LWNJs. 14-1-1 makes no mention of the immigration status of parents.