Trump Says He Will Void Birthright Citizenship Law Through Executive Order

If they begun the process of amending the 14th through proper channels, it would actually have lot of support.

By voiding / amending clear text in the Constitution, they would become guilty of violating the Constitution themselves, and would risk impeachment. I doubt they are willing to take the risk just to appease the public (or worse, partisan) opinion.

 

Thats what everyone says when they disagree with a high court decision

 

To stop the anchor baby factory, we don't have to amend the Constitution, we simply need to rule on what it currently says. It boils down to "and subject to the jurisdiction there of." It's been ruled that this doesn't apply to visitors, foreign diplomats and aliens. Clearly, people who are here illegally are aliens. Ten years ago, a hospital in Dallas, Texas reported that 3/4 of the babies born there that year were born to illegals. You can imagine how high it is now. Women from Mexico and other central American countries come in illegally, when pregnant, and pop into hospitals all across the state when in labor to deliver in the US; to produce yet another anchor baby. It needs to stop.

 

It has been ruled that "subject to the jurisdiction" does not apply to visitors, foreign diplomats and aliens. Illegals are aliens.

 

You are repeating yourself. The Supreme Court has never amended clear text in the Constitution, which is why there are 33 amendments in the Constitution, none of which were made by the SC. The amendment process is the only way to do it. They could not even cancel the prohibition. It had to be done by another Constitutional amendment.

 

I doubt that it would be retroactive, but rather going forward. That said, and while I like another tax cut and ending birthright citizenship. The timing does seem like it could well be a midterm election ploy.

 

No one had ruled foreigners on US soil are not in US jurisdiction aka subject to US laws. Diplomats yes, but foreign visitors (legal, or illegal) certainly are subject to our laws. If they break a law, they will be judged based on US laws. Likewise, they are protected by the same laws.

 

And so are you

There is no such thing as clear text other than current judges respecting the decisions of previous courts

And the 14th has not bedn tested for the anchor baby issue

 

I wish that were true

But I have not seen evidence of it

 

I am having trouble with this format.

Being subject to the jurisdiction has been ruled to mean people who have no other allegiance to any other country. That has been interpreted to mean foreign visitors, ,foreign diplomats and aliens. Of course illegal aliens are those here illegally and could even mean the soldiers of a foreign army.

 

I hope that proves true

And if so trump will be the man of the Century

 

None of the three are anchor babies. Haley and Rubio were born of naturalized citizens and are therefore just as American as you or I. Cruz was born in Canada.

 

The fourteenth.

 

Who has ruled that people on US soil are not under US jurisdiction aka subject to US laws?

 

Careful what you hope for. If it were true, all foreigners who have committed crimes in US, would have to be released, and been paid reparations for being detained while not in US jurisdiction.

 

Interesting point.

 

No, neither of Rubio's parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. I highly doubt Nikki's parents were either since they arrived in US just before she was born. Her being an anchor baby probably helped her parents become citizens, since it was never easy for people from India.

 

Not necessarily

The SCOTUS can dice that apple any way it chooses

Consider Roe v Wade

The lib judges rule that women have a right to an abortion

But not an absolute right

Huh?

 

The votes were not along party lines, and the argument was about privacy and due process.

As I already explained, unlike birthright citizenship, abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so the justices had to make their ruling based on their understanding about the Constitution as whole. The SC has never ruled to alter something which the Constitution clearly spells out (like the 14th), not even the cancelling of the prohibition. In those cases they ask for the Congress and/or States to amend the text.

 

The black robes can split any legal hair they choose

Gay marriage is another example of a court ruling that makes no sense to many ordinary people

They can certainly define the 14th in a way that you do not approve of

 

The question was gun control.
And 25 or 26% said they don't favor it.
You tried to claim 100%(libs) want to ban guns outright. Your proof, shows that is NOT the case.

And here is the question you referred me to.
Do you favor or oppose the following gun control measures?
- Repeal the Second Amendment
Oppose strongly 49% 26% 50% 75%
26% oppose strongly. While as you say, 21% favor strongly.
So more favor NOT repealing the 2A.

 

Flashback: 'No Sane Country' Would Reward Illegal Immigration With Automatic Birthright Citizenship Said...Harry Reid....

 

Did he propose to amend the the 14th via Executive Order?

No.

There is a process to amend/repeal it. Use it!

 

You may be talking about the 14th Amendment, but I'm talking about the law, 8 U.S. Code § 1401, which defines citizenship. I can be changed by legislation.

 

Yes. Amend. Tho not with an EO.

FLASHBACK: Here's Sen. Harry Reid on why the U.S. should ...
Twitchy
22 hours ago · According to PolitiFact, Reid changed his position over time: So, in 1993, Reid was clearly for restricting birthright citizenship. He introduced a bill that would have “clarified” the 14th ...