Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Ya ok...we're done. Pregnant chicks absolutely choose the dangerous trek to illegally cross the border to spit out a baby all because of progressive bullshit sensibilities and virtue.

Those **** policies ruin America.

 

Begs the question...if it's so easy to end "anchor" babies with an E/O then why didn't Trump do it during his presidency?

 

Very easy answer. Back then “ build the wall and Mexico will pay for it” was going so well , Trump didn’t want to use his other racist policy just for sake of it. Now Trump needs a new policy to knock down DeSantis and he pull out one of his another great racist policy.

 

https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/2...nt people under,Court's decision in Fleming v

1st: That part of the quote is part of the holding.

2nd: "The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." VII. Upon the facts agreed in this case, the Ainerican citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth. No doubt he might himself, after coming of age, renounce this citizenship, and become a citizen of the country of his parents, or of any other country; for by our law, as solemnly declared by Congress, "the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people," and "any declaration, instruction, opinion, order or direction of any officer of the United States, which denies, restricts, impairs or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic." Rev. Stat. § 1999, reenacting act of July 27, 1868, c. 249, § 1; 15 Stat. 223, 224. Whether any act of himself, or of his parents, during his minority, could have the same effect, is at least doubtful. But it would be out of place to pursue that inquiry; inasmuch as it is expressly agreed that his residence has always been in the United States, and not elsewhere; that each of his temporary visits to China, the one for some months when he was about seventeen years old, and the other for something like a year about the time of his coming of age, was made with the intention of returning, and was followed by his actual return, to the United States; and "that said Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting for him, ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom." The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."


If she is within the US border, she's not answerable to the laws of mexico for her behavior she's answerable to the Feds and the State where she's at.
That kid? Has dual citizenship.

 

I don’t buy that. First off I don’t see how wanting to keep illegals out is racist. Second, if Trump could have ended “anchor” babies with an E/O he would have.

 

Oh, you can't be bothered with reading 84 pages before echoing lefty talking points?

The ARK case, which all Democrats rely on for the notion babies of illegal aliens acquire citizenship simply by dropping on American soil, is contradicted by ARK itself. ARK said that a child born from LEGAL RESIDENT Chinese parents is a US citizen. Now the U.S. government's own lawyers argued against ARK, but that is the 125 year old incorrect ruling. Illegal aliens aren't legal residents.

 

Then do a better job of securing the border.

You sound like a sovereign citizen. Just because she's illegal doesn't mean she's immune to the laws of the united states IE not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Seriously man: Members of the Senate pointed out exactly the issue you cite and were told to pipe the **** down while the motion passed and the amendment became law.

If you don't like it, get an amendment. Good luck with that ****.

 

Yeah and it also explains what SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF means, conceptually.
It means not immune to the laws, and not in active direct service to a foreign power.
Illegals are not possessed of diplo immunity, and they're not in active direct service to a foreign power. Ergo, they're subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

As I have already explained to you and others: The whole anchor baby thing was pointed out during the arguments for the 14th amendment's passage. The response was "Yes, we know" and it passed.
Don't like it? See Art V.

 

It would be a fantastic 1st step in curbing illegal
Immigration. Remove the gifts.

Been saying it for decades.

 

Anybody within US borders is subject to US jurisdiction ...

... UNLESS they are within the protection of foreign embassies or within other circumstances where the US does not have jurisdiction.

There are no "allegiance police".

 

POLICIES are the first step in deterrence. If they know they won't be rewarded, they are less likely to make the trek.

Nevermind the fact that progressive *******s considered border walls to be "racist"...oh and they don't work because people can simply fly over them. Or something stupid.

That's why the surge happened the moment Biden took office. Because illegal migrant wanna be's knew his policies were more favorable towards them. So ya. Work on that.

 

It's been totally legal for asylum seekers to come here to apply for asylum.

They are here. They don't have papers (because we don't have papers for this category). And, they very well could given birth.

We also have people here with work visas of various kinds, and they can give birth. They are not citizens. Their babies are citizens.

Beyond that, the way we treat children who have no knowledge nor connections to some foreign country of origin is just pure hate.

 

What part of my comment are you addressing? I didn't mention asylum or people here legally with visas.

 

Asylum seekers do not have pending asylee papers until they find a location and successfully apply.

You will note that Trump and other Republicans have been highly steamed about asylum seekers being inside the USA without pending asylee papers - demanding that they stay outside the USA.

But, they do have a long established right to come here for asylum. Those escaping violence are sitting ducks when forced to stand near ports of entry in Mexico.

 

PRETTY CLEAR READING


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.

 

Dog whistle? Hell he should just put on his hoodie when he announces this type of crap!

 

When it comes to people in the country without proper documentation, the majority of them didn't cross the Mexican border at all. Most of them came to the United States legally — but then don't leave.

About 700,000 travelers to the United States overstayed their visas in fiscal 2017, the most recent year for which the Department of Homeland Security has published figures. DHS estimated that, as of Sept. 30, 2017, the end of that fiscal year, more than 600,000 of those travelers were still in the U.S.

During that same year, there were just 300,000 apprehensions along the Southern border, according to Customs and Border Protection — the lowest number since 1971.

https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/6836...tion-mostly-occur-heres-what-the-data-tell-us

 

Facts of the case
The Chinese Exclusion Acts denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants. Moreover, by treaty no Chinese subject in the United States could become a naturalized citizen. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens who resided in the United States at the time. At age 21, he returned to China to visit his parents who had previously resided in the United States for 20 years. When he returned to the United States, Wong was denied entry on the ground that he was not a citizen

Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion
Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus soli—the citizenship of children born in the United States to non-citizens


https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649


In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".

GOOD LUCK WITH THAT

 

AGREED

The story of Donald Trump’s grandfather, who came to the U.S. as an unaccompanied minor


...Under today’s policies, Friedrich Trump would have been considered an unaccompanied minor, or an “unaccompanied alien child,” experts say, unless his older sister, who was his only relative in the United States when he arrived, had been appointed as his guardian. But generally, said Ohio immigration attorney David Leopold, many unaccompanied minors arrive with relatives already in the country.

“Under President Obama, he would’ve been put into what people in the immigration world called the rocket docket. They would expedite his removal and prioritize it,” said New York immigration lawyer Matthew Kolken. The same would have happened under his grandson’s administration.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ho-came-to-the-u-s-as-an-unaccompanied-minor/

 

That was next on his list, after getting Mexico to pay for his "completed, big beautiful wall"

 

Asylum seekers are nothing I mentioned nor are they related to the thread topic.

 

"Reason" blog is not the end all in opinion.
Secondly we also have "birth tourism" where pregnant women fly in, have their babies and fly out with their CCP baby having full citizenship.
The never was change in the constitution with the words "anchor baby", or new offspring on illegals because illegals should not be here to give birth at all. If the supremes change it, then America get to take one baby step in controlling the border.

 

Having allegiance to is not the same thing as subject to local and federal laws

 

Trump said that he knew more about the tax codes than anyone else and that he would fix them. Why did he fail?

 

I understand your confusion. There actually are definitions of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that you don't seem to understand. Which is why the Brennan footnote is in play here. At the time of the writing of the amendment, for example, native americans, aliens of any kind etc, were not considered to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". And since you don't understand the law or what it is based on, why are you credible here?