Trump renews threat to end ' rediculous' birthright citizenship

Foreign diplomats children's are not considered US citizens. That is already written in the Constitution.

 

You cannot make this law retroactive. Just imagine how many people you would now disenfranchise.

 

Talk about a spin and reach.

 

Why can't you?

 

In other words "I can't back up what I've just said, so I'm gonna get."

 

You don't know the meaning either. It's worthy to note that SCOTUS have never ruled on this meaning.

 

No they cannot. Only SCOTUS can do so.

LOL.... you sure don't know how the Constitution works do you? Trump ain't emperor, god or king no matter how you wish it to be.

Too bad for you that Wong Kim Ark is precedent.

A person born here is subjected to OUR laws, hence the person is NOT subject to any foreign power. The only exception is children of Foreign Diplomats!

 

Rhetorical question?

 

1; It was the 14th amendment, not the 25th. The 25th amendment establish the line for the Presidency.

2; Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it was a misinterpretation

The ruling was Ark v The United States, when an American born son of Chinese immigrants sued for citizenship under the 14th amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the wording of the amendment does not explicitly say former slaves, but anyone who is born in the US and is subject to US laws, and as such applies to the children of immigrants.

 

Really? Show me where birthright citizenship was written in 1776.

 

It does not say that, it says:

the debate is over the subject to the jurisdiction thereof part. Many interpret that to mean if they are foreign nationals, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are citizens of.

 

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority to apply law. Which means anyone who subject to US laws falls within US jurisdiction. It applies to far more than just former slaves. In fact, slaves are not even mentioned. US law applies to anyone who sets foot in the United States, regardless of if they are a foreign national. The only exemption to this is foreign diplomats, and their families, as well as anyone who came as part of an unlawful military force, their children wouldn't be considered citizens either.
So, the amendment, as interpreted by SCOTUS, states that anyone who is subject to US jurisdiction (meaning that the US goverment has the power to enforce US law against them), and was born in the United States, is a US citizen.

This not only created birthright citizenship, but duel citizenship as well, since many children of foreign nationals also have citizenship in their parents home countries. And there is no law, or constitutional clause barring US citizens from also holding foreign citizenship.

 

If all what you say is true, then the whole "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is an unnecessary provision. Why include it?

 

Because not including that could leave us open to invasion through foreign diplomats. If the amendment didn't explicitly state that only those born in the US who were also subject to US jurisdiction, were awarded citizenship at birth, then it would also apply to the children of diplomats, meaning that the country would have citizens who have direct relations with foreign officials, and that could be bad if those officials were spies. They could use their children to gain access to the government. Imagine if the they didn't include it, and the son of a spy who had diplomatic credentials wasable to get a job in say, the DOD. They could have access to our defenses.

 

Compared to the number of non diplomat births, I doubt the provision was included just to exclude diplomats. A country could easily bring in non diplomats if they wished to turn them into spies.

 

Trump is working the news cycle like a shock jock.

 

The US has jurisdiction over everyone on US soil except diplomats.

 

How true and no longer shocking.

 

The evangelicals love him. They think he is the leader of prophecy who will usher in the end times.

 

I get that. But why?

Illegals don’t get to be citizens. Just children born here.

 

Oh I know I would disenfranchise my sisters Ho were born here in the USA Buford my parents becam citizens. So I would not make it retroactive just correct a FUBAR going forward.

 

I did not remember that but just in case it was not I figured let's cover a possible hole in our law.

 

Way too many people on this thread that have no clue.

As the AUTHOR of the 14th Amendment said, all it did was amend the constitution to reflect current law AKA the Civil Rights Act of 1866:

On May 30, 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan), the author of the amendment's language, gave a speech on the Senate floor explaining its meaning and declaring that that the amendment “settles the great question” and “removes all doubt” about citizenship:

“It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Howard even went so far as to say that the amendment’s intent had been so thoroughly discussed that he shouldn’t even have to clarify it:

“I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.”

What’s more, the amendment is only articulating what is already established law, Sen. Howard said:

“The first amendment to section one, declaring that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”

As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said “foreigners” and “aliens” born on U.S. soil are, “of course,” not citizens:

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Sorry/not sorry for those of you who don't understand.

 

I agree that is a prevailing attitude and you may be thinking that is where I am coming from. I see the need to humanly tighten up our immigration laws and we should have gotten a handle on preventing illegal entry because we cannot control the volume of illegals here. I said many times that I am n immigrant but we came here legally, my parents followed all of the rules, and they were vetted. If the problem with illegals producing babies here or the nchor baby parents was not so large we would not have go fix our laws.

What I disagree with is the stupidity and the lies that a certain POTUS tell claiming that a wall will control illegal entry. It will not. Ilegals come from many countries such ad Russia, China , Ireland, African and Asian and Middleestern countries. We need to stop illegals from coming here no matter where they come from.

 

We have too many illegals giving birth here so I believe we need to close that loop hole.

I know illegals do not get to be citizens and they do not vote either. My statement taken in isolation of out the contextual flow must have changed its meaning.