Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

...and it will be glorious.

Finally, a real leader proposes an executive order that will put an end to this anchor baby scam that is destroying the country from within.

This is real leadership. Ron DeSantis doesn't have the guts to make these kinds of proposals as he's too worried about polls and his glass jaw.

Trump is proposing to end automatic citizenship IN COMPLIANCE with the 14th Amendment. If at least one parent isn't a citizen or legal resident of the U.S., no citizenship for that kid. That means no benefits and no chain migration.

The 14th Amendment has a two-prong requirement, yet the left stops reading at the first.

This is ****ing awesome. Best damn President in my lifetime and it's not even close.

 

"Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution directs that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a person’s parents."

This seems to be unconstitutional. Not a surprise, though, another dog whistle to the base, which is afraid of immigrants.

 

Coming from a non-citizen, I can see how you are confused. Maybe post the text of the ENTIRE amendment and try again?

 

This would require a constitutional amendment.

 

Says you. Never has been tested at the Supreme Court.

 

It says citizens who have children born in the US are US citizens. I know, you don't understand what the footnote argument is, but you might want to familiarize yourself with it. The "This is the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a person’s parents." is simply BS. It was liberal Judge Justice Brennan who created this in: Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

It is certainly time we revisited this. In a contemporary story from the headlines today, it seems that said migrants didn't want their new anchor baby and threw them in the trash... Liberals want slaves. This is just one way Democrats think they can get them.

 

I don't think so, I think it would take a revisit of the court case Plyler V Doe. Brennan made it up whole cloth. It can be just as easily removed.

 

It would require a test of U.S. -v- Wong Kim Ark. The government actually argued against citizenship status for Ark, except the Supreme Court issued a narrowly tailored ruling in favor of citizenship for Ark because his parents were here LEGALLY under a work treaty with China.

 

Of course, as expected and as we can see in this thread, the self-proclaimed "constitutionalists" have no problems with amending the constitution when it furthers their agenda.

 

While I completely agree that birthright citizenship should only be given to children of Americans the constitution is quite clear:

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.

It would take an amendment

 

I 100% agree with doing away with "anchor babies." It's an out moated 19th century policy that was necessary because of the end slavery and the need then for more people.

Good luck with doing, however. It takes a Constitutional amendment, and the Democrats will never vote for it.

 

You can dance and deflect all you want, but it doesn't take away from the fact the 14th Amendment has been whored out by Democrats to retain power. You won't post the text of the Amendment either. The 14th Amendment was never intended nor interpreted by the Founders to be used as an end-run by illegal aliens for citizenship.

 

Not just birth on US soil. Learn jurisdiction. 2 prongs, not one, give eligibility for citizenship. If it was the left's interpretation, that entire clause in red wouldn't be there.

 

Trump refused his wall for DACA, the chance Trump's gets anything passed with his fragile ego is slim to none

we might get another tax cut for the rich under Trump

 

will our supreme justices rule on the original intent of the 14yh amendment or will they continue to legislate from the bench?

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

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. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

trump and harlan crowe love cheap illegal immigrant labor and will do whatever possible to keep immigrants hungry, afraid, and picking lettuce in the red counties.

 

that means any jurisdiction of the United States, Military stationed overseas, etc.....

 

i have no problem with a constitutional amendment. this will be just another "shadow docket" court decision.

 

Are you saying that persons within the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of those states as well as federal laws?

The last part of the section shows there is jurisdiction:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws​

 

Exactly

They legislated from the bench in Wong Kim Ark. And they carved an exception to:

"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"

They ruled babies of ambassadors and foreign ministers were NOT citizens, yet Ark was because his parents were commoners with legal residence per treaty.

And just to make it clear, the US government lawyers were arguing against anchor baby citizenship.

 

Just give them free abortions when they get here and deport them as soon as the procedure is done that way it will keep Democrats happy.

 

DeSantis didn’t even start his campaign tour and Trump put him in his place. Whenever Trump needs some political help , Trump pull out the next most racist policy he can implement and his devoted supporter get back in line.

 

Is this Trump proposing an end to the 14th Amendment again? Gross. But he knows how to make his rabid and irrational base angry, and he knows that's his biggest draw.

 

You are failing to read the 14th amendment and then projecting your own refusal to read it onto others.

 

@Bill Carson

ambassadors and such have "diplomatic immunity" and are NOT subject to our laws. illegal immigrants have no such immunity and while here are subject to our laws.

i would not oppose such a constitutional amendment, nor am i a fan of "originalism," but a supreme court decision would be just more evidence of unelected judges legislating form the bench, the normal activity of federalist society members.

 

Sounds kind of like your insulting everyone who supports Trump.

Glass houses and everything.