Trump vows to end birthright citizenship.

And people want another politician who doesnt' care about the Constitution?

 

Hillary is losing ground faster and faster, soon her credibility will be nothing but a time stamp in history as she fades into oblivion, scorned by her own.

 

A birth certificate only certifies the birth of the child.

 

There was no concept of illegal immigrant in 1898. WKA states that those born on U.S. soil are citizens.

 

Care to try again? Nothing in your linked comment hints at refuting what I stated or showed. Do you know what "amity" means yet? You then claim Minor isn't relevant, when your own provided WKA quote uses Minor. The rest is simply your ramblings of inanity.

I wonder why Justice Gray points out

Do you not know what a recognized exception is? That there can be other recognized exceptions as in the instance of Indians being denied, which then made 3 recognized exceptions to BRC.

 

My way would be presented with differing legal arguments. Cases are revisited by SCOTUS you know.

 

WKA states that those whose parents are here domiciled and permanent residents are born US Citizens.

and

 

No it doesn't. It merely notes they were. That is in no way a requirement of he ruling. They cite English common law which specifically states the only 2 ways BRC is denied..........http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

 

I wonder if it is just a note that he did it so much to infer it as a requirement of the parents, to include he brought up the fact that his parents were here with the authorization of the US govt via the Treaty of 1868 between China and the US. Shall I go through and count how many times he used the words domicil and resident in his ruling?

English common law isn't cited, our laws are to be read in light of English Common Law. Do you always make things up instead of using the very words a SC Justice states? Do you not know the difference between what you state and what is actually stated by Justice Gray? I would point out that that is your ineptness in your argument per usual. Do you know what amity means yet?

If there are only 2 exceptions why does he state a 3rd by the following

Why did it take an Act of Congress to grant BRC to Indians?

 

You can whatever you like. You remain just as wrong now as the first time I demolished your nonsense.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

He doesn't. He is noting that they aren't under US jurisdiction. Which falls under one of the two categories already given.

 

true, but then the child can return when it grows up legally still as is still born American

I agree that retroactively would be nuts, children that grew up here, know no other country would be cruel to not allow to stay here

.

 

I don't see how citizenship already gained could be revoked but we can certainly halt the practice.

 

then your back to the need for a constitutional amendment

how come the right never talks about removing the statue of liberty or putting a no vacancy sign over her light?

.

 

Well, naturalized citizens can be denaturalized. However, there is no pathway for natural born citizens to lose their citizenship.

I am totally against birthright citizenship being eliminated. That said, I think that babies born of illegal parent or parents should have the following options (all include citizenship): 1) if both parents are illegal, the child citizen can either be deported with the parents (and have the right to return at age 1, or stay with a foster family (somebody that is either a permanent resident alien or citizen); 2) if one parent is illegal, the illegal parent will be deported, the legal immigrant or citizen parent should have the option of staying in the U.S. with citizen child, or leave with deported parent and come back when child is 18.

To use current buzzwords, I'm against the idea of anchor babies, but I support birthright citizenship.

 

I'm not sure I see how that's a big issue. Trump isn't proposing Operation Wetback 3, just the normal enforcement of the law, which for some reason has become an extreme position. That's not going to "arrest, detain, process and deport millions."

 

Absolutely wrong, and you misinterpreted my words.

I used the "word" Europeans but I think its fair to say we all know what I really meant.

The only reason there is all of this anger & rage is for the same tired old reason that has always existed in this country. It's the classic double standard that never seems to go away.

If Mexico was near Italy, and England is where Mexico is this thread would not exist because nobody would give a rats ass about all the white folks coming in, the way nobody gave a rats ass about all the white folks that came in 215 years ago in the 1800's

Deny that, spin that, evade it, whatever you want................but it's true, and we all know it.

 

Seriously, your going to try to pull up some ten thousand year old fossil to right all the evils & atrocities that were committed against the Native Americans to discredit the fact that THEY WERE HERE BEFORE US!!!!!!!

Why in the hell is everybody so confused over this point?

And oh by the way, all the flat screen TV's, cars, and computers in the world will NEVER make up for the Trail of Tears and the five thousand other sickening things our government did to them.

Pendantic......................aww man you have GOT to be kidding me.

 

You actually didn't respond to what I said. What about American Indians? Why were they not citizens under US v WKA? What about children of diplomatic personnel born in this country? Why aren't they citizens?

- - - Updated - - -

Saying that clause was intended for children of diplomats is based on what? What is j"urisdiction" based on? Come on, you can do it!

 

You've demolished nothing and have only shown yourself to be utterly inane. Please keep it up, you are always good for a laugh at.

the Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162;. So you still are unable to quote correctly. And Minor is not relevant because it was a suffrage case, right? Do you know what amity means yet?

Then why does he state they are unknown to common law and are therefor a recognized exception? Thereby making atleast 3 recognized exceptions. There is also a fourth in WKA, lets see if you know where to look.

 

He was pretty damn clear that "all undocumented immigrants must go". that's deportation, INCLUDING families with American children.
Perhaps you should view the interview, before claiming to know what he said, not to mention repeated.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-interview-trump-on-immigration-hillary-clinton-and-his-controversial-campaign-505901123767

 

The bolded part applies until and if Trump's proposal passes.

I realize that the supporters of this are all conservatives but I ask them to THINK on the matter. If we can say that children born here are not citizens because their parents are here illegally then why stop there. Why not say their parents can't be convicted felons or have to be married in a church or what have you. Why not say they can't be blacks or Democrats for that matter and then why not sat say this applies to the parents too?

And just to forestall all the conservative orgasms I see coming, what's to stop me from challenging YOUR citizenship? Can you prove your parents were here legally? your grandparents and great grandparents? And if even one of them is doubtful, hey, deportation proceedings, right here

We are, conservative opinion notwithstanding, DESIGNED as a Nation of Immigrants. For such a nation, nothing other than Birthright citizenship is practical, possible or ethical since we ALL either came here from somewhere else or our families did years ago. The ONLY criterion we can ever have for citizenship is whether you were born here or naturalized and that has to apply to ANYONE born here, no matter their parentage.

Once you start on this path you make citizenship a club and if you have a club then somebody is going to beat people with it

 

Prior to 1866 only whites were allowed citizenship in the US. The 1866 CRA doesn't grant just anybody BRC, and according to Justice Gray in the WKA decision, the 14th is merely declaratory of existing law, i.e. the 1866 CRA.

 

Relax, slow your hysteria. We're 6 months from even the first primary vote. The Trumpening isn't on your doorstep. But yes I saw the interview, but Trump didn't propose some massive enforcement mechanism. But the truth is, yes, "all undocumented immigrants must go." But we already have enforcement mechanisms to do that.

And yes, why wouldn't families who have American children go? We deport them now, we've been deporting them for decades. That just the law. We have deported people here legally on visas who have American children. Why is it suddenly different when the parents are here illegally? I don't follow.

Amazing that I live in a country were simply following the law is considered a radical act.

 

Hysterical? with laughter.

He didn't claim that laws needed to be changed? that birthright citizenship needed to be changed?
Even with simply enforcement of existing laws, the effort to deal with all those "caught" illegals will be MASSIVE. there isn't anyway around the enormous effort required to rid American of undocumented immigrants.

BTW, I wasn't aware that the US could legally deport under aged American citizens.

 

Seriously, yes I am. Those atrocities supposedly committed only by whites against all minorities are the same atrocities all minorities, at sometime in their history, committed against other minorities, and even against whites. Come on. This the-only-bad-people in the world are white is getting old, doesn't make sense and is simply a lie.