Trump to sign Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship for illegals

[rileymartin]

This country was FOUNDED on immigration, and, many of our ancestors were "anchor babies"...

I understand the plight. I want to reduce, and in the case of muslims completely eradicate immigration into this country...But, at the end of the day, the Constitution rules the day, and we must follow it...

Newspaper clippings and dissertations after the fact don't alter the Constitution.

The Supreme Court alters the constitution.

You know the Conservative majority Supreme Court that will be correcting our bad laws for the next 30 years.

That doesn't bother me...Many of my views in that regard would probably align more with the right...Guns, abortion, etc...

[rileymartin]

An amendment with its interpretation being introduced to Congress and voted on at the time = "Newspaper clippings and dissertations after the fact don't alter the Constitution"

Again, it is either in there or it isn't.

[FPL]

An amendment with its interpretation being introduced to Congress and voted on at the time = "Newspaper clippings and dissertations after the fact don't alter the Constitution"

Again, it is either in there or it isn't.

Text of the 14th amendment:

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.

The 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruled that children of legal permanent residents are born citizens. Had the agrieved's parents not been permanent residents, they and their children would not be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States, because they are subjects of foreign powers.

[AbeVigodaLive]

This issue seems a bit more complicated than my brain can make sense of... both sides are claiming they know the true intention of the fancy schmancy written document.

So I'm just gonna believe whoever can insult the other side in a more amusing way.

[rileymartin]

An amendment with its interpretation being introduced to Congress and voted on at the time = "Newspaper clippings and dissertations after the fact don't alter the Constitution"

Again, it is either in there or it isn't.

Text of the 14th amendment:

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.

The 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruled that children of legal permanent residents are born citizens. Had the agrieved's parents not been permanent residents, they and their children would not be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States, because they are subjects of foreign powers.

What does this prove?

[LNS]

Artman's family packing their belongings as we speak.

Why would they?
Why would you think they should?
How stupid are you?
Do you know ANYTHING about the laws or how my family has been 100% citizens for longer than you have been alive?

Give it a rest...you're already stupid enough as is

[FPL]

What does this prove?

I just posted the language of the 14th Amendment. It was challenged in court because it was at odds with the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Supreme Court ruled that since a Chinese kid's parents were legal permanent residents of the United States (via the clause I bolded, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"), he was a citizen, and had he not been the child of legal permanent residents, i.e. had his parents been subjects to a foreign power, he would not be a citizen by birth.

[ripper76]

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Seems pretty clear. We may need the Supreme Court to clarify for the slow folks though.

[Johnnyblazzed]

LMD - Trump to sign Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship for illegals

Ali - "LOL! Whitey McRight Wingers, I thought you were all Constitutionalists."

Tits - "Orange man n ocan chngae constution"

Ripper - "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION"

AG Fags - *crickets*

FLP - "The author of the 14th Amend detailed intent of 14th Amend."

RM - "My interpretation of the 14th is way different than the author's intent. He's wrong because white, racist, right wing nut job. And corporate welfare."

FLP - "The US has always included the intent by the author(s) of Constitutional amendments."

Scholmo - Shitty troll post

RM - "Robble, robble" - shakes fist. "Conflate immigration with illegal immigration, incoherent gibberish. Robble, robble!"

FLP - "WTF!?!?"

Ali/RM - Still unable to understand what Ripper posted earlier. Posts more gibberish.

FLP - "...AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF..."

Abe - "English is hard"

RM - "Erk derr... what this prove? English hard me too."

FLP - "Dumb fucks, here's an example that illustrates what that means."

Ripper - "So uh... yeah, I posted about Jurisdiction earlier. You're all fucking idiots."

[elartman1973]

Artman's family packing their belongings as we speak.

Why would they?
Why would you think they should?
How stupid are you?
Do you know ANYTHING about the laws or how my family has been 100% citizens for longer than you have been alive?

Give it a rest...you're already stupid enough as is

Go back where?
Smh..you guys are so in the dark as far as.the laws...I'm in zero danger or anything remotely close to even being looked at as a subject to be deported...just give it a rest..its stupid and makes you look stupid

[rileymartin]

Johnnyblazzed : Hey Ripper and FPL, look what I did, can you guys spit roast me?

[Ali Natural]

If you are in another country you are subject to its laws and in its courts jurisdiction. Hold that L tighter

[TheSaboteur]

I'm glad johnnyblazzed didn't include me.

[rileymartin]

The 14th amendment was mainly to protect children of slaves that were born in this country despite what FPL posted. Additionally, when the 14th amendment was enacted, there was pretty much no such thing as illegal immigration.
So all of this gibberish after the fact is personal opinion, and not rooted in facts.

[AtiliusRegulus]

The 14th amendment was mainly to protect children of slaves that were born in this country despite what FPL posted. Additionally, when the 14th amendment was enacted, there was pretty much no such thing as illegal immigration.
So all of this gibberish after the fact is personal opinion, and not rooted in facts.

stay away from a discussion on history. you're in over your head.

[FPL]

The 14th amendment was mainly to protect children of slaves that were born in this country despite what FPL posted.

Riley, your post doesn't mean what you think it does, friend. The 14th Amendment was to make slaves and the citizens of slaves citizens. That's why the authors went out of their way to make clear that it did not apply to children of foreigners born here.

To further make this point clear, note that the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to Native Americans. The Indian Citizenship Act (1924) did so.

Thank you for making our case for us.

[AbeVigodaLive]

For what it's worth... The Wall Street Journal reports that most legal experts say the move is unconstitutional.

To be fair... I no longer know if WSJ is considered fake news or not.




[Note: I'm sticking with my "english is hard" alibi on this one.]

[FPL]

For what it's worth... The Wall Street Journal reports that most legal experts say the move is unconstitutional.

To be fair... I no longer know if WSJ is considered fake news or not.




[Note: I'm sticking with my "english is hard" alibi on this one.]

The WSJ is pretty good. So the article in question cites three individuals. The first two lawyers are from the ACLU and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, both liberal organizations so they will disagree on principle. The third, Donohue, isn't wrong per se - the executive order will be challenged by a lower court. The whole question (in this thread) is how the SCOTUS will rule on the interpretation of the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment.

[AtiliusRegulus]

The 14th amendment was mainly to protect children of slaves that were born in this country despite what FPL posted.

Riley, your post doesn't mean what you think it does, friend. The 14th Amendment was to make slaves and the citizens of slaves citizens. That's why the authors went out of their way to make clear that it did not apply to children of foreigners born here.

To further make this point clear, note that the 14th Amendment did not grant citizenship to Native Americans. The Indian Citizenship Act (1924) did so.

Thank you for making our case for us.

cRiley is not smart. he just thinks he is.

[AbeVigodaLive]

For what it's worth... The Wall Street Journal reports that most legal experts say the move is unconstitutional.

To be fair... I no longer know if WSJ is considered fake news or not.




[Note: I'm sticking with my "english is hard" alibi on this one.]

The WSJ is pretty good. So the article in question cites three individuals. The first two lawyers are from the ACLU and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, both liberal organizations so they will disagree on principle. The third, Donohue, isn't wrong per se - the executive order will be challenged by a lower court. The whole question (in this thread) is how the SCOTUS will rule on the interpretation of the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th Amendment.

I dunno. Doesn't seem to be clearcut. Here's an excerpt from a Fox News article:

Trump, should he pursue the executive order, would face court challenges, and it remains unclear whether he could prevail. Many legal scholars would argue such a change requires a constitutional amendment. But some conservatives argue the existing amendment holds room for interpretation.

But again... I'm not certain if they're reliable or merely fake news either. They did call out Trump on a lie earlier in the article.