Utopia Talk / Politics / Comrade Trump hates the Constitution

FoxNEWS Member	Tue Oct 30 06:25:32 Trump plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship: Axios President Donald Trump said in an interview posted on Tuesday that he intends to sign an executive order that would terminate birthright citizenships in part of an effort to end "anchor babies" and "chain migration." Trump told "Axios on HBO," that the U.S. is the only country in the world "where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits." Trump called birthright citizenship "ridiculous" and that "it has to end." Under the Constitution, anyone born in the U.S. – regardless of whether it is by a non-citizen or unauthorized immigrant – is considered a citizen. There is an amendment that has been interpreted to mean that any woman who gives birth on American soil has given birth to a U.S. citizen. The interpretation has been blamed for so-called 'birth tourism' and chain migration. http://www...ios/ar-BBP6hTS?ocid=spartanntp
murder Member	Tue Oct 30 07:17:31 The new conservatism ... changing the US Constitution by Presidential decree. On the plus side, it opens the door for my vision of revoking the citizenship of all Trump's and Trump supporting traitors.
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 07:19:44 I don't think Trump can do that. Either way, treason sounds like an appropriate response.
murder Member	Tue Oct 30 07:34:32 Trump can do anything that Congress allows him to get away with, and the GOP controlled Congress will let him get away with anything.
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 07:42:44 Not really. Any number of lawsuits will pop up in response to this. Trump needs the courts to agree with him, not just Congress.
Delude Member	Tue Oct 30 07:55:38 Oh look trump rhetoric again, catnip for the trumptards
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Oct 30 09:16:18 Treason is ridiculous. He will sign the order. Someone will complain to the courts and he will have to work his way all of the way to SCOTUS if they decide to hear it. Every step until the final decree will be perfectly legal. That is the proper way to test the Presidential authority in cases like this.
Rugian Member	Tue Oct 30 09:23:43 Kind of a waste of everyone's time though. The 14th Amendment really doesn't leave any room for interpretation on this issue.
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 09:40:24 "Every step until the final decree will be perfectly legal." No, it won't. The order itself is illegal, we all know it is. The court will (or, should) confirm that. It is treasonous for the president to willfully and purposely deploy the American military on American soil. And you know one fucking hundred percent that if it were Obama, you'd be saying the same thing, retard rod. But, what else are we to expect from the tiny dick-tater, Toadstool Trump?
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 09:49:37 "The 14th Amendment really doesn't leave any room for interpretation on this issue." He's clearly angling for a strict interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". There was quite a bit of debate over the phrase during ratification, and it was determined that it would not apply to Native Americans or to those subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. "It is treasonous for the president to willfully and purposely deploy the American military on American soil." Lol. Imagine thinking that the military exists for any reason whatsoever beyond protecting our borders. Screech more.
Jack Cafferty Member	Tue Oct 30 09:59:29 Lol here we go forwyn thinks he knows laws
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 10:00:07 Lol here we go a multi who doesn't understand the meaning of words
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 10:11:57 "Lol. Imagine thinking that the military exists for any reason whatsoever beyond protecting our borders. Screech more." Imagine being this retarded.
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 10:12:43 Coming from the retard screeching about treason. rofl
Jack Cafferty Member	Tue Oct 30 10:14:26 Lol forwyn with of history citing laws and misinterpreting them. Yet accuses others of not understanding words. Lol Kek
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 10:20:07 Lol multi with a history of declaring that there is only one interpretation of laws and whining incessantly that it is pointed out that others could easily interpret it another way. As if there aren't courts hashing out the interpretation of laws every day because of disagreements. Kek
kilo Member	Tue Oct 30 10:21:04 Wouldn't that put Melania Trump under this because of her parents being immigrants?
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 10:23:31 "screeching" Is this your only insult, or are you about to also call me an NPC? Hot rod is almost better at this. Kinda pitiful.
Jack Cafferty Member	Tue Oct 30 10:25:27 Lol the problem is that forwyn think he is interpreting it correctly while claiming he is presenting that others perceptions. Yet is wrong about that assessment. In other words, his analytical abilities are far subpar. Hence why he gets called retarded, mocked, or made of. He essentially is the Hot Rod of the Constitution or Codified laws. Kek
Jack Cafferty Member	Tue Oct 30 10:26:41 Those* others perceptions Made fun* of
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 10:31:58 "Is this your only insult" It is the most apt, in this case. You are quite literally screeching about "treason". It's amusing.
Jack Cafferty Member	Tue Oct 30 10:34:39 As amusing as your interpretation of laws.
Aeros Member	Tue Oct 30 10:51:46 Article 1, section 8 of the constitution makes this matter the sole purview of congress. Trump can't do this, full stop.
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 10:56:10 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/537/ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
Jack Cafferty Member	Tue Oct 30 11:00:41 Classic forwyn citing laws that he doesn't understand nor are applicable to what trump was advocating
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 30 11:04:27 another midterm stunt
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 30 11:06:01 just like the made-up 10% tax cut, he probably made this up w/ no one ever advising him if it was even possible
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 11:16:55 Possible. Trump is a fan of off-the-cuff comments with nothing actually planned.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 30 11:26:27 is that acceptable? he claimed the tax cut was coming out by the start of November as if actually nearly ready & with R support, rather than a total surprise to everyone in congress should be an impeachable offense
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 30 11:35:54 if the tax cut doesn't materialize soon (w/ expectation of passage by R's), and an executive order on birthright citizenship doesn't get signed (with expectation of holding up in court), he should be impeached then charged with election fraud... and tax fraud... and real estate fraud... and charity fraud... and consumer fraud weird that there's evidence for all of those... almost like he's a fraud
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 11:41:06 "You are quite literally screeching about "treason"." I'm starting to think your retardation goes well beyond inexplicable logical jumps to make your own conclusions (sebbing), and actually extends to full on Seb. Screeching does not mean what you apparently think it means. Nor does literally, despite the dictionary change. You should never go full seb. You've gone full seb.
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 13:22:21 "is that acceptable? he claimed the tax cut was coming out by the start of November" Not really. He dumbed down the process of lying. Nothing new, but it's certainly more noticeable. Probably because he's borderline retarded. "Screeching does not mean what you apparently think it means. Nor does literally, despite the dictionary change." Okay bro. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AmesK3j_C_8/maxresdefault.jpg "It is treasonous for the president to willfully and purposely deploy the American military on American soil. And you know one fucking hundred percent that if it were Obama, you'd be saying the same thing, retard rod. But, what else are we to expect from the tiny dick-tater, Toadstool Trump?" lol
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 13:32:54 Doubling down on your sebbishness. "No guys, I was just being a retarded for lols!!" - forwyn
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 13:39:45 No, this is me continuing to laugh at your shrill rant. No doubling down required.
hood Member	Tue Oct 30 14:01:45 Whatever you say, American Seb.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Oct 30 14:42:22 Paul Ryan: "[Trump] obviously can't do that" (about his executive order) yet we will continue to let this unfit childish ignorant lying bag of shit be the President for some reason
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 30 15:33:51 Pretty shitty part of the constitution anyway. Not even part of the bill of rights.
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 15:44:10 Lulzy. They wanted to explicitly give former slaves citizenship but wanted to deny it to Natives. You wound up with the jurisdiction clause.
American Democrat Member	Tue Oct 30 16:20:35 Looks like some of you need a refresher course on the Constitution since it appears some of you want to arbitrarily due away with "due process from state" and "equal protection laws." Yeah, pretty "shitty part of the Constitution" indeed. "Classic forwyn citing laws that he doesn't understand nor are applicable to what trump was advocating " Yes and No. It may apply in some sort of capacity but not in the way it is being utilized. Also, for Trump stating what he said shows a clear misunderstanding of his powers and a clear complete ignorance of the Constitution himself. "They" as he says probably means what he thinks as he selectively hears what he wants. And he thinks whatever he says is law or his interpretation of it. Kind of like some posters who seemingly have a hard time interpreting laws here themselves as demonstrated in some threads and through the course of the years.
kargen Member	Tue Oct 30 17:04:05 "It is treasonous for the president to willfully and purposely deploy the American military on American soil. And you know one fucking hundred percent that if it were Obama, you'd be saying the same thing, retard rod." President Obama and President Bush both deployed troops to the border. I know there was some talk a while back about changing some of the rules/regulations having to do with birth right citizens. They wanted to make a change so that being a birth right citizen doesn't automatically mean the parents and multitudes of other relatives get to stay in The United States. The talk didn't go anywhere. President Trump isn't going to get what he wants on this one with just a signature. I do agree with him though that the law shouldn't apply to those who enter the country illegally. A presidential decree isn't the way to do it though.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Oct 30 17:08:44 Foxy NEWS The question that SCOTUS needs to answer in this case is if the child of two foreigners, who are subject to a foreign country, is subject to that country as well. It appears the Founding Fathers definition of 'natural born' has never been fully determined. Is the child's citizenship determined Jus soli or Jus sanguinis, by the soil or parentage? Jus soli is self-evident so the SCOTUS needs to determine if the loyalty of the parents to their native country determines the child's citizenship. It appears that President Trump is assuming Jus sanguinis is the determining factor of the child's citizenship and wants the Supreme Court to decide.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 30 17:49:51 HR Because 200 years of practice just aint good enough to show that Jus soli applies.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Oct 30 17:56:02 As I said, "It appears the Founding Fathers definition of 'natural born' has never been fully determined."
jergul large member	Tue Oct 30 17:59:51 Friedrich Trump was born in Kallstadt, Palatinate. The adjective is Palatine. Trump is half Palatine (his paternal grandmother is also from Palatinate).
jergul large member	Tue Oct 30 18:00:32 It was fully determined for 200 years with babies being given American citizenship at birth.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 30 18:02:36 Anyway, Constitution Rod: "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" Guess where that is from.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Oct 30 18:08:45 No, it was assumed. Jus soli, was something adopted from English Common Law. "English common law Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[29] Calvin's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608),[31] was particularly important as it established that, under English common law, "a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."[32] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England ... since as before the Revolution.[33]" United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). However, Calvin's Case is distinguishable, as a Scotsman was granted title to English land as his King (James VI of Scotland) and England's King (James I of England) were one and the same.[34] Calvin was not born in England.[34] Moreover, in Calvin's Case, Lord Coke cited examples in which the native-born children of parents, either invading the country or who were enemies of the country, were not natural-born subjects because the birth lacked allegiance and obedience to the sovereign." http://en....tizenship_in_the_United_States
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Oct 30 18:11:30 "and subject to the jurisdiction" That is the Question. Your statement is subject to repeal.
patom Member	Tue Oct 30 18:42:13 Trump is drooling to find and excuse to declare Martial Law. Then take full control of the government.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 30 18:48:11 HR The argument has already been tested. Patom Why declare martial law? It seems easier to just rule by decree.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Tue Oct 30 18:51:18 Where? When?
jergul large member	Tue Oct 30 19:15:03 Wong Kim Ark and later cases In the years since Wong Kim Ark, the concept of jus soli citizenship has "never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and [has] been accepted as dogma by lower courts". Citizenship cases since Wong Kim Ark have dealt mainly with situations falling outside the bounds of the Citizenship Clause[4]—such as citizenship via jus sanguinis for foreign-born children of U.S. citizens,[159] or circumstances under which U.S. citizenship may be lost.[160] The Wong Kim Ark court's affirmation of jus soli as the primary rule determining United States citizenship has been cited in several Supreme Court decisions affirming the citizenship of U.S.-born individuals of Chinese or Japanese ancestry.[160][161][162][163] The court's holding that the language of the Constitution should be understood in light of the common law has been cited in numerous Supreme Court decisions dealing with the interpretation of the Constitution or acts of Congress.[164][165][166] The Wong Kim Ark court's understanding of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction was also cited in a 1982 case involving the rights of illegal immigrants.[167] An unsuccessful effort was made in 1942 by the Native Sons of the Golden West to convince the Supreme Court to revisit and overrule the Wong Kim Ark ruling, in a case (Regan v. King) challenging the citizenship status of roughly 2,600 U.S.-born persons of Japanese ancestry. The plaintiffs' attorney termed Wong Kim Ark "one of the most injurious and unfortunate decisions" ever handed down by the Supreme Court and hoped the new case would give the court "an opportunity to correct itself".[168] A federal district court[169][170] and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals[171] summarily rejected this contention, each citing Wong Kim Ark as a controlling precedent, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.[172] Federal appellate courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to cite the Wong Kim Ark opinion's use of the phrase citizenship by birth within the territory in support of claims that persons born in the Philippines during the period of its history when it was a United States possession were born in the U.S. (and thus entitled to U.S. citizenship via the Citizenship Clause).[173][174] Judge Richard Posner, in a concurring opinion in a federal appellate decision, criticized the jus soli holding in Wong Kim Ark in connection with illegal immigration, but at the same time conceded that the courts were powerless to change this rule, urging Congress to do so instead.[175] Wong Kim Ark and children of undocumented immigrants See also: Birthright citizenship in the United States (current controversy), Illegal immigration to the United States, and Consensual citizenship Since the 1990s, controversy has arisen in some circles over the practice of granting automatic citizenship via jus soli to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens [176][177]—controversially dubbed the "anchor baby" situation by some media correspondents and advocacy groups.[178] Public debate over the issue has resulted in renewed discussion of the Wong Kim Ark decision.[179] Some legal scholars, opposed to the idea that jus soli should apply to the children of illegal aliens, have argued that the Wong Kim Ark precedent does not apply when alien parents are in the country illegally. John C. Eastman, a former dean of the Chapman University School of Law, has argued that Wong Kim Ark does not entitle U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to gain automatic citizenship because, in his opinion, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States requires a status of "full and complete jurisdiction" that does not apply to aliens who are in the country illegally.[6] Eastman further argues that the Wong Kim Ark decision was fundamentally flawed in the way it dealt with the concept of jurisdiction,[180] and that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924—which followed Wong Kim Ark—would not have been necessary if Congress had believed "that the Citizenship Clause confers citizenship merely by accident of birth."[181] A similar analysis of the jurisdiction question has been proposed by Professor Peter H. Schuck of the Yale School of Law and Rogers M. Smith, political science professor at Yale.[182] According to law professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas, even if Wong Kim Ark settled the status of children of legal residents, it did not do so for children of illegal residents; Graglia asserts that the case weighs against automatic birthright for illegal immigrants because the Court denied such citizenship for an analogous group, namely "children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation".[183] Richard Posner, a judge of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, has also criticized the granting of citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, suggesting that Congress can and should act to change this policy.[175] Charles Wood, former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on immigration, has also opposed the practice, urging (in 1999) that it be stopped as quickly as possible, either by an act of Congress or a constitutional amendment.[184] Countering this view, Garrett Epps—a professor of law at the University of Baltimore—has stated that "In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the United States Supreme Court held that this guarantee [of birthright citizenship] applies to children of foreigners present on American soil, even if their parents are not American citizens and indeed are not eligible to become U.S. citizens."[5] Epps further notes that "as a practical matter, the American-born children receive recognition of their citizenship regardless of the immigration status of their parents."[185] In Epps' opinion, the sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment "were unwavering in their insistence that the Citizenship Clause was to cover" the children of such undesirable immigrants as Chinese and Gypsies, and he views the Wong Kim Ark ruling as an "unexceptionable" matter of reading the drafters' intent.[186] Cristina Rodriguez, a professor at the New York University School of Law, has argued that Wong Kim Ark's situation was "similar in all meaningful respects" to that of children of illegal immigrants, because "they both involve immigrant parents ineligible for full membership in the polity, or immigrant populations that were tolerated but disdained or considered legally erasable." Rodriguez goes on to claim that the Wong Kim Ark ruling was "a powerful rejection of the idea that one's status depends on his parent's status."[187] Noting contrary arguments (such as those put forth by Schuck and Smith), Rodriguez says that "For all practical purposes, this debate has been resolved. Though renewed interest over the last few years in immigration reform has prompted the introduction of legislation in Congress to deny the children of the unauthorized jus soli status, these measures have been political non-starters, in large part because of the widespread view that the Supreme Court would strike down any such legislation as unconstitutional."[188] James Ho has expressed a similar view to that of Rodriguez, saying that "Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers."[189] Ho also argues that those who claim the Citizenship Clause was not in fact intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens are disregarding the substance of the 1866 Senate debate over the proposal to add this language to the Fourteenth Amendment.[30] The Supreme Court's 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision[190]—in a case involving illegal alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents, and who had no basis for claiming U.S. citizenship)—has also been cited in support of a broad application of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction to illegal aliens and their children.[191][192] A Texas state law had sought to deny such children a public education, and the Texas government had argued that "persons who have entered the United States illegally are not 'within the jurisdiction' of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws."[167] A dictum footnote in the Court's majority opinion remarked that according to Wong Kim Ark, the Fourteenth Amendment's phrases subject to the jurisdiction thereof (in the Citizenship Clause) and within its jurisdiction (in the Equal Protection Clause) were essentially equivalent; that both expressions referred primarily to physical presence and not to political allegiance;[116] and that the Wong Kim Ark decision benefited the children of illegal as well as legal aliens.[191] As a result, the court rejected the claim that Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" depended on whether someone had entered the U.S. legally or not.[167][193] Although the four dissenting justices disagreed with the opinion of the Court regarding whether the children in question had a right to a public education, the dissenters agreed with the majority regarding the applicability of Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction to illegal aliens.[194] James Ho considers Plyler v. Doe to have "put to rest" any doubt over whether the sweeping language regarding jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark applies to all aliens, even illegal aliens.[7] The United States Department of State (the federal government agency responsible for international relations) considers U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus to have citizenship at birth. The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual takes the position that this issue was settled by the Wong Kim Ark ruling.[176] In the words of Lucy Salyer, "the birthright citizenship doctrine of Wong Kim Ark has remained intact for over a century, still perceived by most to be a natural and well-established rule in accordance with American principles and practice. It is unlikely to be uprooted easily."[195] Legislative attempts to overturn Wong Kim Ark In response to public reaction against immigration[116] and fears that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit legal residency and eventual citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible to remain in the country, bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the Citizenship Clause and have sought (thus far unsuccessfully) to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens.[196] As one example among many, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009"—introduced in the House of Representatives of the 111th Congress as H.R. 1868, by Representative Nathan Deal of Georgia—was an attempt to exclude U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from being considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause.[197] A similar proposal—named the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011"—was introduced in the House as H.R. 140 in the (112th) Congress on January 5, 2011 by Representative Steve King of Iowa,[198] and in the Senate as S. 723 on April 5, 2011 by Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.[199] Neither bill was discussed in Congress prior to the end of the session. Since an act of Congress challenging the accepted interpretation of the Citizenship Clause might very possibly be ruled unconstitutional by courts choosing to rely on Wong Kim Ark as a precedent,[188] proposals have also been made to amend the Constitution so as to override the Fourteenth Amendment's language and deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or foreign visitors. For example, Senator Vitter of Louisiana introduced Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.) 6 in the 111th Congress, but like H.R. 1868, it failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress before the 111th Congress adjourned on December 22, 2010.[200] Vitter reintroduced this same proposed amendment as S.J.Res. 2 in the 112th Congress on January 25, 2011; it was not brought up for discussion or voted upon in either house of Congress.[201] In 2010 and 2011, state legislators in Arizona introduced bills proposing to deny regular birth certificates to children born in Arizona whose parents could not prove they were in the United States legally. Supporters of such legislation reportedly hoped their efforts would cause the issue of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal aliens to reach the Supreme Court, possibly resulting in a new decision narrowing or overruling Wong Kim Ark.[202][203][204] On October 30, 2018, President Donald Trump announced his intention to issue an executive order abolishing birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of non-citizens.[205] On this same date, Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina said he would introduce legislation in Congress to accomplish the same thing.[206]
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 20:13:08 Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant. The citizens had legal residence.
Forwyn Member	Tue Oct 30 20:13:17 parents*
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Oct 31 00:55:50 It ought be noted that this discussion forum has existed in some form or another for some two decades, and not a single time until Constitutional Scholar Donald Trump suggested otherwise has it even been debated that natural born citizens are natural born citizens.
Pillz Member	Wed Oct 31 01:25:04 Not sure that the US has ever the victim democracy threatening political migration in the 18 years that boards existed.
McKobb Member	Wed Oct 31 01:36:23 He rides the pendulum.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 05:04:00 "Wong Kim Ark is irrelevant. The citizens had legal residence. " No not irrelevant, as it has been referred to in multiple cases as the basis for the argument determining the opinion about birthright citizenship or the citizenship clause. The substance that is being referred is that the slaves at the time did not have citizenship. They did not go through any process other than being shipped, born, and given the status of property thus neglecting any rights given to them. The debate itself established the intention of 14th Amendment where itself was to give the legal status of citizenship to "all persons born." Therefore this left a broad opening for those who if had children are given citizenship. Ironically this also spurs the debate does this apply to military personnel if children are born abroad on a us military base and is that considered "US Soil." It isn't, and the only way a children can be considered a citizen is through their parents. On a side note: The statement also made by Trump that no other country does this in regards of citizenship is emphatically false.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 10:14:44 jergul, I have read all but the last few paragraphs. What you have is a gaggle of opinions, pro or con, whether Wong Kim Ark is legitimate or not. Wong Kim Ark is itself an opinion of SCOTUS based on Jus soli. Neither The Court nor The Constitution addresses Jus sanguinis. This needs to go to The Supreme Court and their decision should indicate if natural born is Jus soli or Jus sanguinis based on the intent of The Founded Fathers and they should further state that a Constitutional Amendment is needed to solidify which is intended by The Founded Fathers. A search of President James Monroe's papers should answer the question since he was the go-to guy when they were writing The Constitution. He was a scholar of the various forms of government known to man up to that date.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 10:35:09 You are wrong and have been incorrect and should remove yourself from the conversation as you contribute nothing. What you said equates to staying the aforementioned cases reference is irrelevant and if you have that view? It means you lack any understanding of the subject matter at hand.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 10:36:06 *stating the aforementioned case referenced...
jergul large member	Wed Oct 31 11:27:57 HR A ruling by the USSC confirming citizenship based on Jus soli. There is already an ammendment. The 14th. Its fine that you want to change the Constitution, but I find it a bit irritating you think the matter has not already been ruled on.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 12:01:20 If you are speaking of Wong Kim Ark then I submit that you are the one in error. The 'aforementioned case' was a Supreme Court opinion about Jus soli. Jus sanguinis was not considered during that case and apparently, it was not considered in the 14th Amendment either. It further clouded the problem by not clarifying "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Who does, indeed, have jurisdiction over the child. The United States Government or the parents of the child. If the parents are not loyal to The United States and its laws then what makes the children loyal? Do you see the quandary? As I said, SCOTUS needs to hear this, make the decision if the children are citizens due to Jus soli or Jus sanguinis or neither. Once SCOTUS makes the decision Congress needs to write a new amendment to The Constitution. I have been searching for about an hour but I cannot find what I am looking for. You all know the condition of my memory so I may be totally wrong. I seem to remember that Congress can indeed begin a new amendment to The Constitution under certain circumstances. I may be totally wrong. What it boils down to is there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment defining natural born and jurisdiction of. These terms really do need to be determined to eliminate all future problems concerning children of foreign-born parents with questionable citizenship and loyalties.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 12:16:23 "What it boils down to is there needs to be a Constitutional Amendment defining natural born and jurisdiction of." It is and was and been ruled by SCOTUS and plain language called the 14th Amendment. It is remarkable that you are this dense to understand that. But you are historically dense based upon many subjects that you have participated. All the information you seek actually has been posted and explained. Plus the fact that you are looking for specific language to support what you think is there is humorous as well. Majority opinion by jus.horace gray in 1898 "History and law, Irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children born, withing the territory of the United States, of all other person, of whatever race it color, domiciled within the United States."
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 12:20:08 Nonetheless, I think you agree that Trump cannot make an executive order regarding this matter that goes uncontested due to parameters, precedents, and court opinions.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 12:21:54 I don't want to change The Constitution, I just want it clarified. It appears to me that the 14th Amendment is based solely on Jus soli as far as what we are talking about. In addition, it adds another phrase that needs clarification. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." I cannot see where Jus sanguinis is specifically addressed in The Constitution. Further, Amendment 14's "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." obviously pertains to Foreign diplomats, tourists, and others. But **not** illegal aliens. There was no such thing when The Constitution was written.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 12:27:42 "If the parents are not loyal to The United States and its laws then what makes the children loyal? Do you see the quandary?" Also, "child belongs to the state."
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 12:31:47 AD - Nonetheless, I think you agree that Trump cannot make an executive order regarding this matter that goes uncontested I cannot conceive of the possibility of it not being contested. If he signs the EO early in the morning I would almost bet a half dozen objections being filed before lunch. As far as the EO being treason or against the law that is just not so. It is perfectly legal to write an EO but if he is wrong it will be modified or overturned.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 12:32:47 "I don't want to change The Constitution, I just want it clarified." Has been clarified. What you want requires a change. "It appears to me that the 14th Amendment is based solely on Jus soli as far as what we are talking about. In addition, it adds another phrase that needs clarification. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Does not and has been addressed in cases. "I cannot see where Jus sanguinis is specifically addressed in The Constitution." Its covered under the 14th amendment, idiot. "All persons born or NATURALIZED...." please stop posting
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 12:35:27 You need to review birthright citizenship and immigration and nationality act
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 12:36:39 Also review United states nationality law
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 12:49:49 "Has been clarified. What you want requires a change." Not a change an Amendment to clarify what is meant by certain words and phrases used over a century or two ago mean today, in today's problems. "Does not and has been addressed in cases." I cannot find where Jus sanguinis is defined in The Constitution and no, it is not covered in the 14th Amendment. Will you please point it out. The exact amendment and your interpretation, please.
TJ Member	Wed Oct 31 12:51:56 Fumbling around I found this little jewel. 2nd column following the death of General Scott entry. http://www...ard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 12:58:29 "All persons born or NATURALIZED...." You really need to read the entire thread. the word 'naturalized' and what the Founding Fathers intended by that word means exactly is what started this discussion. "You need to review birthright citizenship and immigration and nationality act" That is a law written by Congress it has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. And please stop telling me to stop posting, you do not have the right to make such a request or demand. If you do not like what I am saying then please go away or at least get specific and stop expressing your opinion.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 13:04:00 "Not a change an Amendment to clarify what is meant by certain words and phrases used over a century or two ago mean today, in today's problems." Hence there are laws and acts that I referenced. This sounds like an argument that you would agree an amendment to be clarified based on today's gun laws. The Constitution is absolute and how we interpret. And many decisions are based upon it. Including the 14th amendment. What you want is a change. That's your argument taking in the totality of the circumstances. You can claim opposite all you want but what you're saying does calls for a change. "I cannot find where Jus sanguinis is defined in The Constitution and no, it is not covered in the 14th Amendment. Will you please point it out. The exact amendment and your interpretation, please." Your inability for not understanding words is not my problem. I posted a line and capped the word from the fourteenth amendment and then told you to review certain cases, laws, and acts. Again you wanting a specific articulation based upon what you have in your brain does not dismiss that language exists in other formats. This was pointed out and again information given what you should review
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 13:12:39 "You really need to read the entire thread. the word 'naturalized' and what the Founding Fathers intended by that word means exactly is what started this discussion." Again, 14th amendment and court cases, laws and acts. Information given for you to review. As the 14th amendment uses jus soli OR jus sanguinis. Once again refer to birthright citizenship as INA. "That is a law written by Congress it has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion." You can't be this stupid? "And please stop telling me to stop posting, you do not have the right to make such a request or demand." Oh I do, as it is my opinion that when given information to determine a resolution and your failure to either understand or remain incorrigible and continue to introduce variables that do not apply to the current equation. Constitutes that you do not want to learn from the information or throw a tantrum because you do not like the answer that is given based upon your predetermined conclusions to support a president who clearly was wrong with their claims. In other words: fallacy "If you do not like what I am saying then please go away or at least get specific and stop expressing your opinion." Stop being asinine.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 13:15:15 "Its covered under the 14th amendment, idiot." This has been an intelligent and mature conversation up until you used that word. Since you want a discussion based on name calling instead of a mature discussion I suggest you find someone else to talk to.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 13:20:21 "This has been an intelligent and mature conversation up until you used that word." This clearly shows you have not been reading nor understanding my post. Because if you had you would have seen that one of my initial posts was basically calling you that before used the term
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 13:23:21 *before I used the term. Regardless, jergul, myself, and others provided data that demonstrates how this has been ruled upon and shown that Trump is incorrect with his claims. Yet you linger upon Latin terms that you apparently fully don't understand. And then want to argument about the specifics of it and how it isn't in the constitution. Despite the fact it is.
TJ Member	Wed Oct 31 13:30:56 The link I provided speaks to intent. Unless of course it was fake news in 1866 by the originator of the Amendment.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 13:39:38 Do you even know the meanings of the words jus soli OR jus sanguinis? How about naturalized or "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." naturalized was used over 225 years ago while jurisdiction over 150 years ago in The Constitution. Words have an exact meaning, what do these words mean today considering today's problems? When Congress wrote the various laws and acts since then they gave no consideration as to what the words were originally meant as regards The Constitution. That is what President Trump wants, clarification. Nothing more, nothing less. -30- ,
jergul large member	Wed Oct 31 13:45:50 I for one find the 2nd ammendment very unclear and in need of clarification.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 31 13:50:11 TJ The intent was to codify civil rights provided blacks in a manner that was irreversable. Congressmen in a wider sense answered to first and second generation immigrants with tons of relatives thinking of joining them. The wider intent was almost certainly to retain the support of people waiting for relatives to come over. Giving the 14th ammendment as written.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 14:24:00 "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to 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 question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States." ~Senator Jacob Howard TJ, are we to assume by this that, "every other class of persons" includes the tens of thousands of persons crossing our borders every year without permission and in complete disregard of our laws and wishes? How could Senator Howard have known this would be the case 166 years after his death? I still believe that the terms need to be defined by another Amendment to The Constitution so there will be no doubt as to the legality of Anchor Babies. AD can call it a change if he wishes.
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 14:30:42 While they are at it they can clarify the commerce clause. I forget the exact word(s) I'm looking for there. My apologies.
TJ Member	Wed Oct 31 15:06:17 "TJ The intent was to codify civil rights provided blacks in a manner that was irreversible." I agree it was a part of the intent.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 31 15:08:11 HR There is no doubt on the legality of anchor babies. They are American citizens.
jergul large member	Wed Oct 31 15:09:04 Or did you have any example in particular of someone born in the US who you think did not actually gain citizenship by doing that?
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 15:14:18 "Do you even know the meanings of the words jus soli OR jus sanguinis? How about naturalized or "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." " I do, I clearly do. Even showed you examples and some references to review. But apparently you are having a hard time understanding what they mean. Where clearly everyone else who has a brain understands them. Whereas you now are defying logic and reasoning when greater minds have discussed this and opined and argued in various court cases, laws and acts. And here we are offering you ways to enhance this particular burden you have placed upon thyself and you still struggle. More directly. I do. Better question do you? "naturalized was used over 225 years ago while jurisdiction over 150 years ago in The Constitution. Words have an exact meaning, what do these words mean today considering today's problems? " The same as they did before when referenced in court case opinions, laws, and acts which have been referenced for you to review. Did you even go bother to review them? "When Congress wrote the various laws and acts since then they gave no consideration as to what the words were originally meant as regards The Constitution. " And you wonder why you were called an idiot and asinine? "That is what President Trump wants, clarification. Nothing more, nothing less. " His interview clip from Axios begs to differ. "I still believe that the terms need to be defined by another Amendment to The Constitution so there will be no doubt as to the legality of Anchor Babies. AD can call it a change if he wishes." And there you have it. You want an Amendment, which in itself is a change to the constitution. Didn't you just a few posts back declared you didn't want it to change? Again, you wonder why you were called an idiot or asinine.
Cold Rod Member	Wed Oct 31 15:17:36 Hot rod again shown how completely out of his league he is on another topic.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 15:20:45 "I for one find the 2nd ammendment very unclear and in need of clarification. " lol, hence why I made my remark based upon hot rod's logical argument. If that is the case, then we really need to define 'arms.'
jergul large member	Wed Oct 31 15:27:56 We all know what arms are. They are things that are bare when you wear tanktops. Hence the constitutional right to go in short sleeves.
TJ Member	Wed Oct 31 15:28:00 Maybe I should have posted a more lengthy link, but people usually avoid a lot of reading. I might add that Congress has the means to do whatever it chooses. I highly doubt but a few will possibly read. http://www...hip/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf
jergul large member	Wed Oct 31 15:33:08 My point was a bit wider. It is entirely possible to imagine the Constitution buried in red tape if every president or Congressional majority just make executive orders and law that will clog up the court with demands for constitutional rulings. The wording hardly matters if the backlog of EO variations and legislature gets big enough.
TJ Member	Wed Oct 31 15:37:40 Not at all difficult to imagine. It seems customary at this juncture.
American Democrat Member	Wed Oct 31 15:42:18 No TJ it's good reading, I just haven't fully gone through it, but it appears jergul is addressing it. But I commend the good find. Also, yes jergul, indeed this clarification is unneeded as this is clearly speaking about human appendages and limbs. This was all about the human anatomy.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Oct 31 21:59:22 from way ^up there: "President Obama and President Bush both deployed troops to the border" that was National Guard... Trump specifically says he wants active duty military not reserves (just like last time, even though he didn't get it last time) lil boy Trump just wants to sound tough for the midterms
TJ Member	Wed Oct 31 22:03:47 jergul: Since this thread is ending I'll provide a few things concerning the 2nd Amendment. You might find this it interesting as well as others. Go figure, in 1791 there is no record of Congressional Debates. That began in 1800. Seems a lot of fake news was an argument of the time. http://www...ebate_Congressional_Record.htm Here is another link you should also find interest. http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm
Hot Rod Revved Up	Wed Oct 31 22:08:55 TJ, I got as far as the passage I quoted. What was hard was that monster that jergul posted. I gave up when I only had about three paragraphs left.
TJ Member	Wed Oct 31 22:48:55 I had no problem reading the post.
	show deleted posts