Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 91 to 99 of 99

Thread: trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship

  1. #91 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    State of Bliss
    Posts
    31,007
    Thanks
    7,095
    Thanked 5,196 Times in 3,829 Posts
    Groans
    433
    Groaned 261 Times in 257 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    I've been in England!!
    When you get back??

    Did you notice any new Chinese projects & other BRI works in Thailand??
    "There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."



  2. #92 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RB 60 View Post
    Trump is correct. The 14th. Amendment was not written so any illegal can come here and have a litter of American citizens who then are eligible for government handouts.
    Keep families together, arrest and deport them all.
    Therefore you are ok with Trump violating it?

    All you bitches, both cons and libs need to practice support of all parts of the Constitution.
    This isn't a buffet dinner.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  3. #93 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    10,720
    Thanks
    1,623
    Thanked 4,770 Times in 3,312 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 166 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Birthright Citizenship already doesn't exist. Everyone just acts like it does.

    The text of the 14th Amendment reads: “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.”

    Most people just disregard the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording as meaningless legal jargon, but it is the most critical part. It was added by the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically to prevent anyone from misinterpreting it to imply any kind of birthright citizenship for foreigners. He went out of his way to make this unmistakably clear from the beginning:

    “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.”

    Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. This was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

    All the evidence shows that liberals simply invented this phony right out of thin air and forced it into effect without any basis whatsoever, in open defiance of what was intended.
    Last edited by artichoke; 08-24-2019 at 06:23 PM.

  4. #94 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Living in rural America, "clinging to guns and religion"
    Posts
    43,021
    Thanks
    9,528
    Thanked 22,512 Times in 16,974 Posts
    Groans
    134
    Groaned 522 Times in 502 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rune View Post
    Therefore you are ok with Trump violating it?

    All you bitches, both cons and libs need to practice support of all parts of the Constitution.
    This isn't a buffet dinner.
    How did Trump violate it?
    Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.

  5. #95 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arminius View Post
    Most people just disregard the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” wording as meaningless legal jargon, but it is the most critical part. It was added by the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically to prevent anyone from misinterpreting it to imply any kind of birthright citizenship for foreigners. He went out of his way to make this unmistakably clear from the beginning:

    “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 says "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors." It does not say "foreigners, aliens or those belonging to the families...."

    So those children of embassy personnel are not American citizens but all others are. Even after the 14th amendment federal naturalization law said all those born in the U.S. are citizens and then defined children of diplomatic personnel who are not citizens.

  6. #96 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    10,720
    Thanks
    1,623
    Thanked 4,770 Times in 3,312 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 166 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It says "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors." It does not say "foreigners, aliens or those belonging to the families...."
    You're regurgitating easily-debunked Media Matters propaganda that deliberately misinterprets how English works with dishonest and erroneous semantics. Saying birthright citizenship will not include people "who W, X, who Y or Z" CAN and DOES refer to four separate groups of people (they were separated into two groups of like things for obvious reasons) and in no way implies that any of those groups are subgroups of any other. That's a provable fact of how English works...and that's the only interpretation that makes sense with literally ALL the other evidence...again, the evidence you ignored to further perpetuate this known lie:

    Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. This was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to TRIBAL jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

    Please stop parroting this blatantly erroneous lie.

    Attachment 11412

  7. #97 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arminius View Post
    You're regurgitating easily-debunked Media Matters propaganda that deliberately misinterprets how English works with dishonest and erroneous semantics. Saying birthright citizenship will not include people "who W, X, who Y or Z" CAN and DOES refer to four separate groups of people (they were separated into two groups of like things for obvious reasons) and in no way implies that any of those groups are subgroups of any other. That's a provable fact of how English works...and that's the only interpretation that makes sense with literally ALL the other evidence...again, the evidence you ignored to further perpetuate this known lie:

    Senator Lyman Trumbull, Senator W. Williams, and Representative John Bingham of Ohio (and everyone else involved in the drafting and passage of the 14th Amendment) are also on the record emphatically clarifying this. This was even emphasized by the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins, in which it acknowledged that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to Native Americans, because they are subject to TRIBAL jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

    Please stop parroting this blatantly erroneous lie.

    Attachment 11412
    No, I am citing U. S. naturalization law and Supreme Court cases. I'm sure you know U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark

  8. #98 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    10,720
    Thanks
    1,623
    Thanked 4,770 Times in 3,312 Posts
    Groans
    10
    Groaned 166 Times in 157 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    No, I am citing U. S. naturalization law and Supreme Court cases. I'm sure you know U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark
    No, you're butchering them. And naturalization laws do not trump the Constitution, and the Supreme Court gets the Constitution wrong more than almost anyone. Citing them proves nothing, but even taking the "SCOTUS is automatically infallible fallacy" at face value (the same SCOTUS that legalized slavery), its decision to deny Native Americans citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins (which you keep avoiding) due to them being subject to TRIBAL jurisdiction instead of to U.S. jurisdiction PROVES that everyone involved understood it to mean there was no such thing as birthright citizenship. Who knew, everyone involved in the drafting of the 14th Amendment REALLY WASN'T mistaken about what they all meant, contrary to your absurd lying.


  9. #99 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arminius View Post
    No, you're butchering them. And naturalization laws do not trump the Constitution, and the Supreme Court gets the Constitution wrong more than almost anyone. Citing them proves nothing, but even taking the "SCOTUS is automatically infallible fallacy" at face value (the same SCOTUS that legalized slavery), its decision to deny Native Americans citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins (which you keep avoiding) due to them being subject to TRIBAL jurisdiction instead of to U.S. jurisdiction PROVES that everyone involved understood it to mean there was no such thing as birthright citizenship. Who knew, everyone involved in the drafting of the 14th Amendment REALLY WASN'T mistaken about what they all meant, contrary to your absurd lying."

    Because I am citing constitutional law and you are claiming they are wrong means you are butchering them, not me. If the men involved in writing the 14th understood its meaning they sure were not able to express that meaning when they wrote those born in the U. S. are citizens. Some did not agree with that meaning:

    [debate] "The response on the floor was delivered by Senator John Conness of California, himself a naturalized citizen born in Ireland: The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.96As for the danger of Gypsy"

    "An instructive colloquy ensued between Wade and Senator William Pitt Fessenden of Maine, chair of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. As reported by Wade, “[t]he Senator from Maine suggests to me, in an undertone, that persons may be born in the United States and yet not be citizens of the United States. Most assuredly they would be citizens of the United States unless they went to another country and expatriated themselves . . . .”

    I am not ignoring Wilkins, it is just not relevant. Clearly many thought the Indians were subject to tribal jurisdiction because some signed treaties giving them sovereignty and some were not yet militarily conquered. Naturalization laws cannot supersede the Constitution but they can supersede it because Congress gave Indians citizenship. Are those Indians subject to any less tribal jurisdiction today? Yet, they are citizens. You think the Supreme Court was right in Wilkins but wrong on everything else.

    Those Indians were subject to tribal jurisdiction, but that is not true of a child born in the U. S. They are subject to U. S. laws and can be prosecuted and incarcerated in the U. S. That is very different from embassy personnel who are immune from U. S. jurisdiction and laws.

    The upreme Court did not legalize slavery. That was done by the Constitution by not prohibiting it (because it would never have been ratified.

    You can yell the courts are wrong all you want to, but that does not change the laws that govern us today.

    Even Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship only applies to illegals meaning even he thinks those here legally who have children are citizens (just as Wong ruled).
    Last edited by Flash; 08-25-2019 at 05:20 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1435
    Last Post: 04-21-2022, 01:07 AM
  2. Ryan: Trump can't end birthright citizenship
    By Guno צְבִי in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 11-01-2018, 10:58 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-30-2018, 03:55 PM
  4. Is birthright citizenship on the way out??
    By Bill in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 217
    Last Post: 09-11-2017, 07:42 AM
  5. Birthright Citizenship
    By Canceled2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-29-2011, 05:38 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •