Guest shiloh357 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 President Trump intends to sign an executive order ending so-called "birthright citizenship," where any baby born on U.S. soil is automatically deemed a U.S. citizen, according to an interview posted Tuesday. The policy, which stems from a disputed, but long-recognized interpretation of the 14th Amendment, has given rise to what Trump considers abuse of the immigration system. 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 said that "it has to end." Under current policy, anyone born in the U.S. – regardless of whether they are delivered by a non-citizen or unauthorized immigrant – is considered a citizen. The interpretation has been blamed for so-called 'birth tourism' and chain migration. Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” "What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.” The interview was released after Trump told Fox News that Central American migrants who are approaching the U.S.-Mexico border in caravans are "wasting their time" and vowed, "they are not coming in." Trump spoke to "The Ingraham Angle" hours after the Pentagon announced it would deploy some 5,200 troops to the southern border in what the commander of U.S. Northern Command described as an effort to "harden the southern border" by stiffening defenses at and near legal entry points. "When they are captured, we don't let them out," Trump told host Laura Ingraham. "We're not letting them out ... We're not catching, we're not releasing ... We're not letting them into this country." Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump, has argued that it would be “unconstitutional” to change how the 14th amendment was written and that the line subject to debate applies to the legal obligation of all foreigners and immigrants to follow U.S. law, Axios reported. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-he-plans-to-sign-executive-order-ending-birthright-citizenship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 It's about time. Liberal cry babies will file a lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 Filing a law suit won't help the libs. It will die in the Supreme court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 Let's take a look at the 14th Amendment: Quote 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 sounds pretty straightforward to me, but let's take a look at the argument. 3 hours ago, shiloh357 said: "What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.” Even illegal immigrants are under the jurisdiction (definition - the official power to make legal decisions and judgments) of the United States. Illegal immigrants are subject to the laws of the United States, as are their children. It is a losing argument. The legal-wrangling aside, consider this for a moment - if a President could somehow overturn an Amendment by Executive Order, how would you feel about a future President EO'ing away the 2nd Amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 56 minutes ago, other one said: Filing a law suit won't help the libs. It will die in the Supreme court There is zero legal standing for an Executive Order to overturn an Amendment to the Constitution. This is completely contrary to the separation of powers that has been vital to this nation since it's birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,260 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,988 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: There is zero legal standing for an Executive Order to overturn an Amendment to the Constitution. This is completely contrary to the separation of powers that has been vital to this nation since it's birth. but this is concerning a court's definition of what the constitution says..... his EO can run it back through the court system and have the court decide that wasn't really what the Amendment says. That has always been very controversial decision about the Amendment….. and that certainly can change things... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 38 minutes ago, other one said: his EO can run it back through the court system and have the court decide that wasn't really what the Amendment says. But the Amendment is clear about what it says. It has been legally challenged before and the citizenship clause has been upheld, so there is clear precedent. Here is a story on the legal challenge to the 14th Amendment regarding a Chinese citizen in the late 19th century: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/10/30/birthright-citizenship-trump-inspired-history-lesson-th-amendment/?utm_term=.4b2d4e85ffd5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan - "You obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," Ryan said in an interview with WVLK, a station based in Lexington, Ky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.92 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 People do not realize the implications to such an ideal. Are we all now going to have to show prove that our ancestors came here legally? Go find our paper work to prove that our great -greats grands came to American legally in 1862? You don't think these things can happen? Just wait and see how very bad things can go when you start messing with things. Trump is trying to undo the very thing that makes America America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted October 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.92 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 30, 2018 3 hours ago, one.opinion said: The legal-wrangling aside, consider this for a moment - if a President could somehow overturn an Amendment by Executive Order, how would you feel about a future President EO'ing away the 2nd Amendment? Next will be doing away with freedom of the press. Or maybe it will be doing away with freedom of speech, and arresting anyone who speaks negatively against Trump.( SNL can not even make a joke about Trump without him going off on a twiter rant. ) If we allow this right to be taken. Soon more will follow. Something to think about. We nee more thinking and less raging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts