End of Birthright Citizenship

Trump cannot end birthright citizenship and no one claiming it will be deported while the cases are pending. The correct, but dull way to make birthright citizenship less palatable is to pass a law that any non-citizen parent of a birthright citizen child, can never become a citizen and is eligible for no more than (choose a number) visas/entry lifetime. Birthright citizenship was meant for one thing and one thing only: to make newly freed slaves, born in this country, citizens. Like everything else good, progressives took it, used people weaker than them as weapons and ruined it. Progressives love the Palestinians, because they use and abuse people the same way. The kids can stay, the parent have to go as they weren't bown here. In addition, asylum has to be ended. Make it fair and end it for all.

===> "if it reaches SCOTUS, it could get overturned; I would give any semi-reasonable conservative case a fighting chance there."

Normally I would agree, but I just don't see SCOTUS overturning this. We're talking about the children of people living and working here, whether the parents are citizens or not. The Founding Fathers made their intent in adopting this provision very clear in their deliberations, which included giving immigrants the opportunity to come here and bear children who would enjoy the privileges of citizenship.

That amendment was made after the Emancipation Proclamation to ensure that freed slaves' children would have the right to legally vote. I think there is a weak link in the qualification "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Birth tourists, who come to the US strictly to give birth and provide their babies US citizenship, and illegal aliens can be adequately described as not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. At the very least, it can be begin the discussion to amend or repeal that 14th amendment, which is sorely overdue.

@Puddy: The same reason that Roe vs. Wade was overturned is the same reason that this will survive. Many of the Conservative justices are constitutional constructionists.

In this case, the intent of the drafters was clear, as set forth in records of the deliberations. They actually knew that this could entice others to come here and give birth. Back then that was considered a positive outcome given how young the country was and how much more land we had to populate.

And there is ample case history as to why illegal immigrants are considered "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." After all, what federal laws are they exempt from? They can be prosecuted for breaking federal law just like anyone else who is here, except for official foreign diplomats and enemy occupiers (which do not have birthright citizenship).

I'm guessing that if this goes to SCOTUS, it comes out 7-2 or even 8-1 in favor of voiding this EO.

If Trump wants this to end, he'll need to get the ball rolling on a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that, lol.

My understanding is that birthright citizenship has always been the law of the United States, the Wong case confirmed that right, not created a new right it basically stated that the right existed as part of the original constitution.

It's in the constitution. They'd need an amendment to change it. He can sign anything he wants, doesn't make it so. A few of the EO's he signed were like that though and I doubt anyone will pursue them all.

If birthright citizenship was in the original constitution, you'd be able to read it there, but it isn't, hence the 14th argument. Of course, if the Supreme Court wanted to act like the assholes who decided Roe v. Wade, they could cancel it by just stating that the 14th amendment only applied to slaves and that not being in the original document it cannot exist. It is called strict contructionsim. Thge only Scotus Wong case I know of has zip to do with immigration and only ruled that the fruits of an illegal entry (verbal, drugs) could not be used in Court. Every Motion to supress ever filed cites it.

Rapier, the Constitution also guarantees the right to bear arms but that hasn't stopped democrats from passing countless gun control laws that violate the 2nd amendment.

As for the 14th amendment, it has never been applied to every child born in the United States. For instance, children born to foreign diplomats that have been born in US hospitals have never been considered American citizens. That is because it was meant to solidify the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted citizenship to anyone born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power". The courts have held that children of foreign diplomats are subject to the foreign power of the country their parents are serving as diplomats for. The courts have also decided that children of foreign nationals born on military bases overseas and at US embassies in other countries (both of which are considered American soil) are not US citizens just because they were born on those types of US soil.

I suppose the courts could stretch those types of exemptions to apply to children born in the US where neither parent is lawfully in the country or just on a temporary visa by saying that the parents are subject to a foreign power. However, it would be quite a stretch especially if the parents claim that they renounced their citizenship to that foreign country by seeking refugee status by fleeing to the US.

It's going to be interesting to see how the courts handle this issue.

You know we're basically the only dopes stupid enough to this by the way. Talk about perverse incentive.

Open borders doesn't work. It's globalist propaganda you guys slurping up. Not every thing is about the cost of labour. Do you guys ever bring up healthcare costs, how about crime. Do you see the places this "immigration" is coming from. Then funny enough when they get here, wherever they goes turns into a mad max fucked up hellscape. The nature of third world immigration is you have to pay for it, dearly. Most of these folks will be going on the doll for the duration of their lifespans, you taxpayer get to pay for all of it. The liberal media ofcourse leaves all that part out.

I mean look at europe. They imported the islamic world for "diversity" and "but they need the workers" Now London is an Islamic city, the folks there are calling for Shariah law. Elon Musk brought up again that horrible story of pakistani muslim men, brutally gang raping again and again white british girls. Have you read of some of those details on these cases? 11, 12 year old girls. Utter insanity. I mean what else is going to take to wake people up? Some of these cultures are not compatible, at all. This is America, we don't do that in this country.

We can be nice to our neighbors. Have respect for them. But everyone can't live our house. We have to boundaries and be able to say no.

@Muddy, so what are you suggesting, that the Latinos who are pouring into this country are going to start a violent Catholic revolt? 😆

We do need the workers. The UK is fucked up in too many ways to easily list, which is why this nonsense goes on there.

We can import the workers through H1B visas. However, that does not mean the H1B visa employees can pop out anchor babies as US citizens to cement their stay in our country. And no, we don't need the workers. We need more manufacturing and well-paying jobs, then we can talk about adding workers.

We can oretend to be constitutional experts here as long as Icey, the left-wing home, pretend to be a heterosexual man who goes to strip clubs because he works and has money.

===> "We can import the workers through H1B visas."

Right Gam, because that's been working out swimmingly so far.

And we sure as fuck do need the workers, and then some. Just imagine if Trump could actually deport several million illegals, who currently represent 5% of our workforce right now doing things that our kids don't want to do. We'd be screwed.

^ When kids get cold and hungry enough they will work. If nor their parents can work more.

I'll be shocked if the Trump court overturns anything Trump is doing.

Says SkiDumb, which thankfully for our world never bred any offspring.

^another minute passes and this homo retard reminds us he is the feces you stepped I'm

No 1st world country in Europe or Asia has birthright citizenship. They recognize it as an inducement for illegal immigration.

^ they know that. Those in favor of illegals hate America.

You’re so stupid, I’m amazed you can even breathe!

^lol. You suck at everything. You cannot even come up with an insult.

Go mount Washington!

Unsurprisingly, the district court in Seattle blocked this Trump EO. Fortunately, the conversation has been started. Is up to the GOP in Congress to start legislation to repeal or update the 14th amendment.

Legislation cannot be used to repeal an amendment, except proposing an amendment in Congress; getting it passed by 2/3 of each branch (not possible now and unlikely ever) and in the unlikely event it passes, then 3/4 of the states (38) have to pass it before it becomes an amendment and that won't happen either. The second way, which never has and never will happen is for 2/3 (34) of the states to pass legislation demanding a constitutional convention. The reason it never happens, but has come close twice, is that once it starts they could theoretically agree to get rid of every single right under the Constitution and have the Presidenr and Congress be permitted to serve forever under the new Constitution. If we want to change birthright citzenship is to pass regulations and legislation that harms every state that refuses to ratify the amendment.It works. Every state has a b.a.c limit for driving of no more than .08%. No federal law mandates it, whcih would be unconstitutional. All Highway and Transportation had to do to get every state (mine was the last with its 2/3 lawyers legislature) to sign on was pass a regulation stating that only states with a .o8 b.c.a law get matching highway funds. This is the way to get rid of birthright citizenship.

Fun fact: There has been a growing trend, especially amongst Asian and African visitors from Hong Kong, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Nigeria to the United States, to make use of "Birth Hotels" to secure US citizenship for their child and leave open the possibility of future immigration by the parents to the United States. Pregnant women typically spend around $20,000 to stay in the facilities during their final months of pregnancy and an additional month to recuperate and await their new baby's U.S. passport.

^^It is going to have to originate in the US congress. The Supremacy Clause makes it impossible for any state to enforce legislation or regulation that conflicts with the 14th amendment. In the currently narrowly divided Congress, we will never meet 2/3 majority needed to pass an amendment, although there is a chance that it could pass with only 12 states objecting (a slim chance). I would like to see such a bill passed to protect our Republic, but to win the necessary majority in both chambers, the GOP will need to rack up some serious wins in the next two years.

^ I actually think there are already enough red states to call a Constitutional Convention. I think people are frightened about doing something that has happened once in world history. 34 States - Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, West Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina. I feel 26 guaranteed with Arizona, Nevada, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire, Delaware as possibles. You might even get one or 2 arrogant blue states to sign on if they see it as an opportunity to constitutionalize some things they want in a trade for others.

After the 14th amendment passed, Blacks were citizens but American Indians still were not citizens. That did not happen until a later law. So, the understanding back then was just being born in this country did not automatically make you a citizen. Indians were under tribal governments so their children were under the same tribal governments. By extension, if a French couple had a child here, the child would be French too.

Blah, we have a culture consumed with media and think what they see applies to real life when in fact the reordered only focus on contextualizing part of the story to over sensualizing it to draw eyeballs so they can sell advertisements. It works because people internalize it and think it’s truth. Go to the Codswells and you won’t see a single person that doesn’t look Caucasian.

There’s not going to be a constitutional convention, this is just more chaos to distract from the fact that these folks have no intention of doing anything except for finding ways of enriching themselves. “A lot of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing “

No need to end birthright citizenship. Just start jailing illegals who come here to breed children, and it ends. Once the gravy train dries up, the illegals will disappear. Trump's plan all along was A) make progressive women wet themselves; 2) make progressive women called men wet themselves; and 3) get the case to Scotus in the hopes that they rule the 14th did not apply to people committing crimes to come here and breed.

At least he’s an honest liberal:

On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher stated that while you would need a constitutional amendment to change it, birthright citizenship isn’t a good idea and it “has been bastardized” by things like birth tourism and “You can’t say that this is just all for the good.”

===> "Indians were under tribal governments so their children were under the same tribal governments. By extension, if a French couple had a child here, the child would be French too."

@Docsavage: The key difference is that the French couple is subject to all of our laws while they are here, whereas Indians were not at the time. Hence the French couple qualifies under the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause while the Indians (back then) did not.

Unless the French couple work in diplomatic functions and enjoy diplomatic immunity. Then their children would not be U.S. citizens even if they were born here.

This has all been very clearly ruled upon through several Supreme Court cases and goes back to English common law. The implications of this beyond the freed blacks was not an unintended mistake. Back then we had a hell of a lot of open space in this country that we wanted to populate, so immigrants were welcome.

So the only way this gets voided is with a Constitutional Amendment. Good luck with that.

I don't know if my great grandparents entered the United States legally or not. So I'm halfway expecting ICE to show up at my doorstep.

and did the Donald's wife and ex-wife (and maybe the other ex-wife) Enter the US legally?

As far as the illegal immigrants... Deport the actual criminals. The rest give them a pass. But stop all the damn give away money spent for housing, grants. etc etc etc.

If they now have a valid job making a paycheck here... they are contributing to our economy. But do tighten up the freaking borders. Especially with Mexico.

^ Elon Musk admitted to having been here in violation of immigration laws, his first few years in the United States.

^TUSCL's top liar and liberal shill is spreading fake news again. According to Wikipedia, Musk denies having been in the US illegally. The WaPo's articles are hidden behind a paywall, but WaPo is almost as unreliable a source as 25iq. Do some fact-checking and provide sources before opening your demented yap. You are wasting our bandwidth.

"The Washington Post reported that Musk lacked legal authorization to remain and work in the United States after failing to enroll at Stanford.[50] In response, Musk claimed he was allowed to work at that time and that his student visa transitioned to an H1-B. According to numerous former business associates and shareholders, Musk claimed he was on a student visa at the time.[52]"

^^^^^You're kidding, right? ^^^^ Yes, Melania came to America legally and followed a legal path to work here and obtain citizenship. It is pretty classless to attack her because you disagree with her husband's politics. politico.com

^ You're a joke Musk himself is the source weirdo.

It took all of a day for a federal court to block this. The judge in the case, who was appointed by Reagan btw, quickly shut this down by calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."

A further snippet about the proceeding (courtesy of CNN):

“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear,” Coughenour said.

“Where were the lawyers” when the decision to sign the executive order was made, the judge asked. He said that it “boggled” his mind that a member of the bar would claim the order was constitutional.

I get it. It didn't cost Trump anything but a Sharpie stroke to sign this and now he can say he did everything he could. But c'mon, lol. Even a Reagan appointee was appalled by this.

The Justice Department can spin its wheels and appeal I suppose, but don't expect a different outcome. This is beyond settled law, lol.

It brings into the conversation and gets a judicial review. It’s a terrible policy that causes “birth tourism” and abuse. I don’t understand why anyone would want birthright citizenship for our country.