According to CBC President Donald Trump says he wants to end the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States.
The president's comments to Axios on HBO come amid a renewed push for hardline immigration policies before the midterm elections. Trump believes focusing on immigration will energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress.
"Now how ridiculous: we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits," Trump said in the interview scheduled to air on Nov. 4.
•Trump made them his target, but Central American migrant caravans are nothing new
•U.S. military deploying 5,200 troops to Mexico border
Trump's comments were incorrect, however.
Canada, for one, is among countries that grant citizenship by birthplace, although there has been a push here and in several other countries in recent years to modify an automatic birthright based on conditions, or to end it outright.
Britain and Australia in the 1980s modified their laws, requiring a parent to be a citizen or permanent resident in order for a newborn to qualify for citizenship, in part to prevent so-called birth tourism.
Revoking birthright citizenship in the U.S. could spark a court fight over the president's unilateral ability to change the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees that right for children born in the U.S.
The first line of the amendment states: "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."
Asked about the legality of such an executive order, Trump said "they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
Trump says White House lawyers are reviewing his proposal. It's unclear how quickly he'd act on an executive order to fulfil the idea he first proposed on the campaign trail in 2015.
During a campaign stop in Florida, he said: "The birthright citizenship — the anchor baby — birthright citizenship, it's over, not going to happen."
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday in social media posts he would introduce legislation in the Senate "along the same lines as the proposed executive order."
Graham called the policy absurd and said it was a "magnet for illegal immigration" which is "out of the mainstream of the developed world."
'False narrative'
Trump, seeking to energize his supporters and help Republicans keep control of Congress, has stoked anxiety about a caravan of Central American migrants making its way to the U.S.-Mexico border. He is dispatching additional troops and saying he'll set up tent cities for asylum seekers.
In the final days before the Nov. 6 midterms, Trump has emphasized immigration, as he seeks to counter Democratic enthusiasm. Trump believes that his campaign pledges, including his much vaunted and still-unfulfilled promise to quickly build a U.S.-Mexico border wall, are still rallying cries for his base and that this latest focus will further erode the enthusiasm gap.
•AnalysisTrump missed his 'last, best chance' for a wall, so he's turning to the troops
•AnalysisTrump could reform immigration and make history — but he'd rather fire up his base
But some believe it will also energize turnout for those who were appalled at the administration's separation of migrant parents from children at the border, and who have pointed out that asylum seekers are a fraction of the number of applicants in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware on the Senate's foreign relations committee, said on Tuesday that Trump "was driving a false narrative on immigration" in many ways to stoke fear ahead of next week's vote.
(Source: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-birthright-citizenship-1.4883589)
Topic: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship (Read 1176 times)
so U.S. citizens who will give birth in a different country will not be granted jus soli, too?
I have no idea. It varies by country.This is an interesting discussion on the subject.
https://cis.org/Report/Birthright-Citizenship-Children-Foreign-Diplomats
A lack of direction from Congress has resulted in children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. soil receiving U.S. birth certificates and Social Security numbers (SSNs) — effectively becoming U.S. citizens — despite the limiting language within the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.
That's clearly wrong. A foreign diplomat exempted from US law has a birth here, and the child gets US citizenship?
so U.S. citizens who will give birth in a different country will not be granted jus soli, too?
According to CBC President Donald Trump says he wants to end the constitutional right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born in the United States....
The first line of the amendment states: "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."
The first line of the amendment states: "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."
Bolded above is the issue.
I support Trump on that cause the are so many instances where the birthright citizenship does not have basis e.g a tourist who just visit a country and happen to give birth within the period of her stay in the U S will have the baby as a citizen of the state but in the real fact this happen just as an accident and many people are now taking advantage of this.
I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it
A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
So you still haven't defined in any way what American culture is for you... hence I don't see how you magically know it's "breaking apart" as you say. Especially if there are already large differences inside your nation.A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
So here you are, as predicted, after I have already defined in detail why culture is important and how I know it is changing, and this is you claiming it is irrelevant because I have not defined it to your satisfaction. Some how now I must meet some unspecified and ever changing metric of definition until you approve before you will acknowledge the argument.
Wonderful so now you not only force words in my mouth but also claim I mean things I haven't written about. Native means being born somewhere so the term seems pretty much adequate when discussing birthright citizenship. Stop your paranoïa for a second and maybe you will find not everyone is yelling racist at you...
I didn't speak for you. Oh yes, its just paranoia now. Claiming racism certainly is not a documented pattern of behavior of the left! Also you didn't answer my question. What do you suppose are my motivations if you believe they are not racist?
Violent rhetoric isn't advocating for violence but being violent in a discussion. If you don't understand that a discussion can be civil and another can be violent, you're either a saint always being civil in every situation or a crazy asshole always being violent in all situations.
It is physically impossible for words to be violent. You use this language in a pathetic attempt to associate words with violent savagery. The fact you find my words offensive or disturbing is no ones fault BUT YOUR OWN.
I have no power over you, you have COMPLETE CONTROL over these feelings, and whether you choose to read what I write or not. You comparing this to violence is nothing short of lying to try to manufacture the crime of upsetting your delicate sensibilities and your weak constitution.
It's not mustering a few words, it's having to take your eyes and put them in front of the numerous sentences you decided to ignore while continuing the discussion. Making it extremely difficult to try to speak to you because when you're facing something you don't like, you just ignore it and continue your own agenda.
Poor you. I don't care what your bias opinion of me is. Argue specific facts.Then here is an idea:
You are ignoring facts that you don't like. And when you're really cornered and can't do more you just stop answering and continue on the next thread.
What facts exactly am I ignoring? Please do tell me EXACTLY. use quotes if possible. ACTUAL QUOTES not your bullshit lazy half quotes. BTW just because you can shit it out, doesn't mean every little thought you have is valid or a fact.You are ignoring facts that you don't like. And when you're really cornered and can't do more you just stop answering and continue on the next thread.
Well shit, when you make a claim like that maybe you should provide some informations if the person you're discussing with doesn't know about it?
Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic?
Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations?
It is fascinating to me that as you in the same breath accuse me of "ignoring facts" you then proceed to yourself ignore that I sourced a bill, a summary of that bill, a break down of hypothetical scenarios which could result from that bill, and even the origin of the legal precedent of presumption of innocence. I am working over time to ignore those facts aren't I? Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic?
Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations?
Unfortunately this is the result of Socialist and Communist indoctrination, a totally disabled ability for critical thought, and anytime you have too much cognitive dissonance just make everything upside down world and all your problems melt away! Right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals, accuse your opponent of what you yourself are guilty of.
Seriously? You ask "when was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event?" and I answer "I've seen them here but I don't know about all situations" and your answer is "yes you don't know shit"?
If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you.
I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is.
If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you.
I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is.
Yeah, I mean its not like you have access to Youtube where you could view footage of American demonstrations, protests, and rallies now is it? My answer is you don't know shit, because on this subject, you don't know shit. You have no problem acting like you do though.
I would really want to discuss with you. But it seems like it's not possible. Here is exactly what has happened:
Techshare
m0gliE
Techshare
Which can be translated by:
Techshare
m0gliE
Techshare
How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions?
Techshare
Quote
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
m0gliE
Quote
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.
Techshare
Quote
Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
Which can be translated by:
Techshare
Quote
Makes a claim
m0gliE
Quote
I never have read or heard anything that support your claim
Techshare
Quote
Mocking m0gliE and not giving anything to support the claim
How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions?
What you just did there is called using "anecdotal evidence". In short that means your personal experience is not statistically relevant. Just because you haven't seen it, or taken the time to learn about it doesn't mean it is not a fact. Just because you pretend I didn't support, explain, or source my argument doesn't magically make it true either. The post history shows otherwise. Why don't you try refuting those arguments instead of just claiming I didn't make or support them.
P.S. Stop using lazy quotes so I don't have to fix your lazy bullshit every time you post to respond in a manner that is readable.
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then? 
We are, and this is not an argument.
Native: A person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/native
If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"?I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it doesn't exist?
That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? Oo"Native" has distinct racial connotations, and a common tactic of people advocating for open borders is to insinuate or outright accuse those they disagree with as racist. What do you attribute my motives to?
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss.
Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
"Violent rhetoric" WTF does that even mean? Advocating for violence? When have I advocated for violence? Words are not violence.
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
Doesn't it work like that? You say A and if I disagree with it you're supposed to provide some kind of evidence or at least logic?
Or maybe that when discussing with you, people are supposed to know what you talk about and if they don't you're the one being right without having to provide context or explanations?
When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course.Yes. You do not know. That does not stop you from claiming authority on subjects you are only casually familiar with now does it?
If you don't see a problem here I can't do anything for you.
I've stopped here. There is nothing to do about you if you don't see where the problem is.
I would really want to discuss with you. But it seems like it's not possible. Here is exactly what has happened:
Techshare
Quote
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
m0gliE
Quote
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.
Techshare
Quote
Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
Which can be translated by:
Techshare
Quote
Makes a claim
m0gliE
Quote
I never have read or heard anything that support your claim
Techshare
Quote
Mocking m0gliE and not giving anything to support the claim
How is it possible to discuss with you in those conditions?
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then? We are, and this is not an argument.
If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"?I see. So unless I can define American culture to your satisfaction, it doesn't exist?
DEFINITION OF CULTURE
This is the definition of culture. All those things effect the functioning of societies. You claiming these qualities are irrelevant is just asinine.
A lot of the people flooding into this country are from nations which are pro-socialist and pro-Communist. They flea the misery that these systems create, not understanding the cause, then come here and vote for entitlement programs and overburden public systems. You do this enough times and before you know it the USA is just like all those failing Communist/Socialist states.
This is just an example, as this could occur in many different ways. We can see this pattern play out on a smaller scale as people flea the more socialist policy heavy areas of the US such as California and Illinois bleeding residents to more conservative states like Texas and Tennessee. They then go there and keep voting for the same broken policies they had from where they left as they begin debasing those systems.
This is just one way I know it is happening, because America is a large place, and we deal with this issue internally between the states as well as internationally.
That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? Oo"Native" has distinct racial connotations, and a common tactic of people advocating for open borders is to insinuate or outright accuse those they disagree with as racist. What do you attribute my motives to?
Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss.Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
"Violent rhetoric" WTF does that even mean? Advocating for violence? When have I advocated for violence? Words are not violence.
Ignoring what facts? Just claiming I am ignoring facts is not an argument. When I answer as one longer reply you cry that I "don't address everything", even though I do, but then when I reply to you, as you reply to me, breaking everything down point by point you complain about "small packets".
You claiming I am not here to discuss does not magically make it a fact. What you experience could also be described as you running out of arguments to defend your position and giving up on defending it. Your ideas must not be very important if you can't muster a few words for its defense.
I am not preventing you from speaking. If you don't like me "dominating the ground" then perhaps you should present some ideas worth a damn. You never know I might even agree with you.
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Don't know what you're talking about... Don't know a single person in the situation you're describing.Well shit, since you don't know anyone it must not be the case. Case closed everyone!
When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course.Yes. You do not know. That does not stop you from claiming authority on subjects you are only casually familiar with now does it?
10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
False and it's easy to prove. Simply take a look of the left political programs 20 years ago and the ones now, current political programs are SO MUCH MORE right sided. They're much more pacific and tolerant towards economic inequalities and wealth distribution. At least again in France. Current "extreme left" program is the program of the "normal left" 20/30 years ago. They seem extreme in our society because we only had right-wing politics for the last 40 years so we're more used to this politic now. Raising minimum wage seems like a communist action while it was just a normal thing to ask for 30 years ago.Again, we are talking about the US, so I don't know why you keep bringing up France. However I suspect if it is anything like it is happening here, what you are experiencing is a result of primarily 2 things. The leftist programs are failing, and negative results are stacking up, conservatives and nationalists all over the world, some times referred to as "the silent majority" are suddenly starting to call out the failure of the left in unison.
They were always there, they were just giving the left a fair shot to try these new programs, and they failed horribly. Now as the adults come to take control of the situation and get everything functional again, the media simultaneously pushes a narrative of a sudden right wing supremacist nazi explosion out of nowhere world wide. Seriously nazis are everywhere. Since these are right wing nazi usurpers, it is therefor acceptable to ignore, deplatform, and dehumanize them.
You are a victim of your television. Get rid of it.
Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it?
Don't know which country you're talking about... You're starting to sound similar to our French "extreme right" political party who are the most interviewed and the most on TV of all the French parties and are always saying that "the media are silencing us" xDHAHAH yeah criminalizing speech is hilarious isn't it?
THE TOPIC US "TRUMP WANTS TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP" not m0gliE tells us about how it is in France.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/criticism-of-immigration-will-be-banned-in-europe/
Free speech is only a RIGHT in the USA. This is not some conspiracy theory, people go to prison in Europe for saying the wrong things and having the wrong opinions.
We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
Similar, immegration laws are more and more harsh the years passing by. More and more countries are starting to put closed borders, redirecting immigrants, expulsing the ones already on the national ground... 30 years ago it was hard to arrive in a country but once the ground you were never deported, never ever.https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/le-nombre-d-expulsions-en-hausse-de-14-en-france_1974518.html
Deportation are increasing every year so I don't see what you're talking about...
The laws are getting more harsh in reaction to these reckless policies of open borders. Again you keep bringing up France. Perhaps you should start a thread about European immigration policy?
As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why it it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests?
You do realize that you're not reasonning logically right?"left is pushing for open borders" -> means left political parties and their supporters want to open border
"I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests" -> the only ones pushing for open borders are at the left
It was always the case and will always be the case. You can't see nationalists and fascists pushing for open borders the only ones you'll see will always be Communists and antifa xD
What the fuck are you even trying to argue here? I literally can't even tell what your premise is, other than accusing me of being illogical without support.
Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos.
LolLetting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Lol againYes, your ignorance is hilarious.
Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it?
Don't know which country you're talking about... You're starting to sound similar to our French "extreme right" political party who are the most interviewed and the most on TV of all the French parties and are always saying that "the media are silencing us" xDQuote
We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
Similar, immegration laws are more and more harsh the years passing by. More and more countries are starting to put closed borders, redirecting immigrants, expulsing the ones already on the national ground... 30 years ago it was hard to arrive in a country but once the ground you were never deported, never ever.https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/le-nombre-d-expulsions-en-hausse-de-14-en-france_1974518.html
Deportation are increasing every year so I don't see what you're talking about...
Quote
As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why it it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests?
"left is pushing for open borders" -> means left political parties and their supporters want to open border
"I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests" -> the only ones pushing for open borders are at the left
It was always the case and will always be the case. You can't see nationalists and fascists pushing for open borders the only ones you'll see will always be Communists and antifa xD
Quote
Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos.
LolQuote
Letting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Lol again Natives first? What did you just get done watching "Gangs of New York" and get yourself all riled up and get yer shillelagh ready?
Natives first is litteraly the patrioc claim of far right in France. Don't know what's the equivalent for USA though.Quote
Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration.
Oh so we're not discussing birthright citizenship then? Quote
If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture.
Doesn't mean anything, can you define what makes the USA the USA? Can you define USA culture? If not, how can you see that "the fabric of what makes the USA the USA is breaking down"?Quote
That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
What? The question of race or racism wasn't even mentionned in all my posts, what are you talking about? OoQuote
Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Violent rhetoric and your heavy abilities to ignore facts you don't like and answering only to a small part of arguments make it easy for you to chase away any different idea from what you believe is right. You're not silencing anyone, you're simply exhausting anyone different from you, making them leave the place of discussion you occupy because you're not here to discuss.Imagine you're in a bus, and while everyone talks politely there is someone who suddenly starts yelling at everyone, without touching them, yelling that they're not understanding shit that they're stupid that they have no logic while not listening to the person or answering any of there argument. That will make everyone leave the bus to take another one. That's what you're doing, you're making extremely exhausting for anyone to try to talk where you are because you're here to dominate the ground, not to discuss.
Quote
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left.
Quote
When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
Every France Insoumise meeting or demonstration of the past 2 years in France... But in USA I don't know of course.Quote
10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
False and it's easy to prove. Simply take a look of the left political programs 20 years ago and the ones now, current political programs are SO MUCH MORE right sided. They're much more pacific and tolerant towards economic inequalities and wealth distribution. At least again in France. Current "extreme left" program is the program of the "normal left" 20/30 years ago. They seem extreme in our society because we only had right-wing politics for the last 40 years so we're more used to this politic now. Raising minimum wage seems like a communist action while it was just a normal thing to ask for 30 years ago. Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?
Don't even know what you're talking about... There is no push toward "open borders" rather the contrary. More and more people both from left and right ask for closed borders, especially in free moving areas like EU. I don't know all programs of all political parties of all countries but in mine the left is heavily against current state of the EU and ask either for a huge change or a Frexit.Quote
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
Quote
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
Irrelevant as you absolutely never proved in any way that "the left is pushing for open borders".Is that so? Is that why they are trying to make it illegal to criticize immigration now in some European countries, because they are so done with it? We all know he is not talking about The Schengen Agreement, so lets not pretend this isn't about the 3rd world flooding in.
As far as proof the "left is pushing for open borders", why is it that I always see Communists groups and ANTIFA at these immigration protests? Letting the 3rd world flood in fits perfectly with Communist ideology considering the entire goal of Communism is to destroy nations to make way for more Communism in the resulting chaos. Letting millions of impoverished people flood into a nation is a good way to do that. Then you have plenty of poor people to vote for your entitlement programs that get paid for by magic some how or something.
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?
Don't even know what you're talking about... There is no push toward "open borders" rather the contrary. More and more people both from left and right ask for closed borders, especially in free moving areas like EU. I don't know all programs of all political parties of all countries but in mine the left is heavily against current state of the EU and ask either for a huge change or a Frexit.Quote
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
Quote
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
Irrelevant as you absolutely never proved in any way that "the left is pushing for open borders". In my sarcastic stupid imitation of the average Left poster I can answer your question.
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Corrected that for you.
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
Natives first? What did you just get done watching "Gangs of New York" and get yourself all riled up and get yer shillelagh ready? Its not about being native, it is about culture and integration. If you let people in too fast the fabric of what makes the USA the USA breaks down and becomes absorbed by the new culture. That is not ok, and the constant attempt to cast this as a racial issue is just a very useful distraction from this fact.
Please explain how "rethoric" gets rid of some one else's ideas and speech. The left are the ones focused on telling everyone what they are and are not allowed to say. Some one else disagreeing with you is not equivalent to them silencing you.
Mobbing, threats, coordinated de-platforming, and attacking ones ability to earn a living are the favored tactics of the left. When was the last time you saw conservatives show up to a leftist event? Why is it that leftists are at nearly every conservative event? It is because the left can not tolerate dissent and attempts to silence it at every turn, by any means necessary.
....
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
10 years ago the left was actually closer to being the true definition of "liberal", in a dictionary sense. That is what the left used to mean, but the Overton Window has shifted SO FAR to the left, even left moderates are now being categorized as being on the right. This was always a Communist/Socialist ideal. It was not always a liberal ideal.
....
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
Actually, this current push toward "open borders" wasn't part of (yes, what I call) the "left" even ten years ago, was it?Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
It's recent and there are specific reasons why. Ten years ago, it was part of a group of concepts being pushed pretty much only by one Soros funded organization.
And why exactly do you think today you have to believe in that idea? I didn't use the phrase "goose stepping" without some reasons, you see.
In my sarcastic stupid imitation of the average Left poster I can answer your question.
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Corrected that for you.
Normal left poster would have answered: one fight being important doesn't mean you have to only chose this one. I know it seems incredible to the like of you who regularly explain that it must be "natives first" but you can ACTUALLY solve more than one problem at once.
Yeah I know, it's incredible. Multitasking at its best.
PS. Funny how you try to put "left" as the "we don't accept any other idea than ours being voiced about" when you and your kinds are the first one to use rethoric to get rid of ideas not following your dogma.
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
Heres a Summary of the video:
There is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship for newborns of aliens, immigrants etc.
My thoughts...Trump is just fear-mongering for support, I do feel for the immigrants though most are simply seeking a brighter future.
What about everyone else already here seeking a brighter future, including immigrants?
Because, shut up!
And this is really an answer worth pondering, because it shows the repression of free ideas and speech that is necessary to the cultish Left. All they need to go total Fascist is a leader in the open with a face to attach the ideas to, but instead they are guided by shadows in the back rooms.
Forward, goose steppers !
Hm.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
Quote from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/30/can-trump-end-birthright-citizenship/#76c466c61c44
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 begins:
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
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.
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
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.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
So what should happen to a baby born in the US to an American citizen father and a non American citizen mother?
It will make the child half American, and this speaking based on experience. A cousin who lives in another country went to the United States with his wife because my cousin was assigned by his company in the country they reside in to transfer to America. They had their first child a year later, and another two years after. Their kids became American citizens automatically because they were born in the US, they, however are not and did not become citizens.
My sister, on the other hand, married an American and they have been together for 8 years. She came to the US one year after they got married and they have been living there for since then. She's still not an American citizen, but they had a baby so that makes the baby half American.
But I wonder, if this became official, will it affect those who have already been granted citizenship, just because they have parents who are not Americans even though they were born and raised in the US?
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
Heres a Summary of the video:
There is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship for newborns of aliens, immigrants etc.
My thoughts...Trump is just fear-mongering for support, I do feel for the immigrants though most are simply seeking a brighter future.
What about everyone else already here seeking a brighter future, including immigrants?
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
Heres a Summary of the video:
There is no constitutional right to birthright citizenship for newborns of aliens, immigrants etc.
My thoughts...Trump is just fear-mongering for support, I do feel for the immigrants though most are simply seeking a brighter future.
The Terrible Truth About Birthright Citizenship - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8
.....
I hope i am welcomed as well. I promise to abide by your rules and regulations. i can even manage the basement. it is Okay by me. just to stay way from the terrifying police.
It's okay don't worry we'll deport the entire basement, bricks floor ceiling and all. I hope i am welcomed as well. I promise to abide by your rules and regulations. i can even manage the basement. it is Okay by me. just to stay way from the terrifying police.
Would you mind if we throw some of the police in there too? That would be convenient, lots of them we need to get rid of.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 14th amendment:
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
Quote
Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO."
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 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.
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
Just wow!
You know we got lots of room for you up here in the great white north, the basement is not the place for an honoured guest, you're welcome to my ice fishing hut for as long as you like! Can you handle UHC, kids not being massacred at school, the elderly not being slaughtered at church, a non racist leader, Maple syrup, weed, real beer and people that aren't terrified of make believe bogey men? If you can handle the harsh brand of communism here I say come on by and we'll have a smoke/drink and a chat and get you all set up!
We do ask politely that you leave the military hardware at the door before coming in please and thank you!
I hope i am welcomed as well. I promise to abide by your rules and regulations. i can even manage the basement. it is Okay by me. just to stay way from the terrifying police.
That's not the perspective of people that live in a county that's overwhelmed with the problem.
But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.
But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.
I love your attempt to put me into some category that's not supposed to have a "perspective" or feel "implications". ...
You have any actual understanding of the border, have you ever walked along part of it? Been in one of those hospitals we are talking about?
I love how the left are constitutionalists all of a sudden xD
Nothing you said is credible let alone sourced. That is except for the 5000 troops on the border. That is happening. The 14th amendment was never meant to be interpreted this way.
Nothing you said is credible let alone sourced. That is except for the 5000 troops on the border. That is happening. The 14th amendment was never meant to be interpreted this way.
Yeah it's a shame that nobody noticed this mistake for 150 years.
Or perhaps it was meant to be interpreted that way and multiple court cases and multiple immigration laws based on the 14th amendment perhaps mean a bit more than fringe xenophobic talking points.
That's not the perspective of people that live in a county that's overwhelmed with the problem.
But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.
But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.
I love your attempt to put me into some category that's not supposed to have a "perspective" or feel "implications". How about you address the actual topic instead of who and how disagrees with you.
Trash-canning the constitution isn't solving anything and would likely waste billions of tax dollars and put 4 million families through unnecessary trouble for a minuscule benefit. Trump is already sending 5000 troops to the border, are you saying he can't stop ~100 pregnant women from crossing the border each day? 50 soldiers per woman, sounds doable.
I love how the left are constitutionalists all of a sudden xD
Nothing you said is credible let alone sourced. That is except for the 5000 troops on the border. That is happening. The 14th amendment was never meant to be interpreted this way.
That's not the perspective of people that live in a county that's overwhelmed with the problem.
But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.
But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.
I love your attempt to put me into some category that's not supposed to have a "perspective" or feel "implications". How about you address the actual topic instead of who and how disagrees with you.
Trash-canning the constitution isn't solving anything and would likely waste billions of tax dollars and put 4 million families through unnecessary trouble for a minuscule benefit. Trump is already sending 5000 troops to the border, are you saying he can't stop ~100 pregnant women from crossing the border each day? 50 soldiers per woman, sounds doable.
I guess we gotta send Trump back to where he came from... oh wait, he's a 'white' immigrant, which makes him okay.
An estimate is 40,000 such anchor babies per year.
So about 1% of total. Doesn't sound like a problem that's worth messing with the constitution and making 4 million US families each year go through federal bureaucracy. And look on the bright side: 40,000 non-abortions. That's gotta outweigh the disadvantages.....
That's not the perspective of people that live in a county that's overwhelmed with the problem.
But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.
If US tax their citizens worldwide, no matter where they reside, isn't there mutual benefit to birthright citizenship? On the other hand it would makes sense to renounce such citizenship if one does not plan to live in US, hold only US citizenship and pay the taxes only there.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 14th amendment:
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
Quote
Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO."
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 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.
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
I don't even read it, simple he changes that what else will they change ? take away officially the first amendment or maybe the second first? who cares, another stupid idea, who cares in the volume there is genius and how to get to the genius trump without having to experience some lower quality ideas from time to time? the real "political" issue: marsha blackburns vs taylor swift...
if we lose taylor, better stop. what is really going on in Tennessee? it has nothing to do with trump... and still... this is critical.
I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.
Maybe not.
Trump has already forgotten about it, he's desperately throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks everyday looking for anything that will bring out his base voters.
this is what experienced leader have the luxury to be able to do... remember it isn't HIS idea, just AN idea... how can you possess AN idea? however HIS towers, HIS presidency, big diff.
my flow is short : taiwan, crispr-cas9 (gen editing), expansion in south america... way more interesting, but isn't it dangerous to wake a public in trance too brutally to what is going on? we don't want a bolshoi incident...
question: does the offspring of a terrorist cell get citizenship? ehehehe... there are no ends to those discussion and when badeckers put is wicked wrapped mind around the subject, just reading his post will hurt you mentally
. 
I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.
Maybe not.
Trump has already forgotten about it, he's desperately throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks everyday looking for anything that will bring out his base voters.
I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.
Maybe not. This will probably go the way of the 10% tax cut that we were supposed to get like right now. By this time next week there will be another distraction, e.g. hysterical screams of election fraud.
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.
I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted
I know. I see two issues with it today.
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.
Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
I think the part "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is in regards to political entities like diplomats.
Even if you are doing illegal things, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (e.g. detention, sending back, court process etc) - except you have something like diplomatic immunity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
In that case, the parents were "legally domiciled" in the US.
Ok, what about the "wherein they reside"? Do babies whose mothers came to the US few days (weeks) before delivery, reside in the US?
Canadian snowbirds who legally stay in the US for 5 months a year, do not reside in the US. They just visit for 5 months.
Mothers who are in the country illegally should be arrested at the time when they try to register their baby's birth. End of story.
I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.
I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted
I know. I see two issues with it today.
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.
Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.
Almost right since they entered illegally they are subject to deportation. This will be interesting to see if the new Supreme Court rules an undocumented alien giving birth in the USA has a direct link to the baby.
It is physical link and that is the umbilical cord. So since the baby is attached to the mother and the mother has no official status does this mean the baby is undocumented and subject to trumps new proposed restriction.
Clever idea that would lose in a liberal supreme court.
Now that the court is not liberal it could fly.
Their have been legal decisions that favor trumps idea.
These would be the ones that let USA hold undocumented aliens in Cuba and waterboard them.
They eventually stopped practice but principle of putting an undocumented in Cuba was and is still allowed.
Well now you know why they let the guy that likes beer get on the court.
Personally it is very interesting idea I wonder how it will play out in court.
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.
I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted
I know. I see two issues with it today.
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.
Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
I think the part "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is in regards to political entities like diplomats.
Even if you are are doing illegal things, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (e.g. detention, sending back, court process etc) - except you have something like diplomatic immunity.
An estimate is 40,000 such anchor babies per year.
So about 1% of total. Doesn't sound like a problem that's worth messing with the constitution and making 4 million US families each year go through federal bureaucracy. And look on the bright side: 40,000 non-abortions. That's gotta outweigh the disadvantages.
I love this quote:
Quote
Russian birth tourism to Florida to 'maternity hotels' in the 2010s is documented. Birth tourism packages complete with lodging and medical care delivered in Russian begin at $20,000, and go as high as $84,700 for an apartment in Miami's Trump Tower II complete with a "gold-tiled bathtub and chauffeured Cadillac Escalade."
Is there any grift that Trump doesn't benefit from?
Pregnant women DAILY give birth in the US to the tune of 10-12 thousand on average. How many of those are day-trippers? Just to get a sense of the scale.
3
But I'm sure infowars has it around 25,000 mothers a day walk across the border to give birth for free in American hospitals!!!!
An estimate is 40,000 such anchor babies per year.
Numerous "maternity businesses" advise pregnant mothers to hide their pregnancies from officials and even commit visa fraud—lying to customs agents about their true purpose in the U.S.[15] Once they give birth, several 'birth tourism' agencies aid the mothers in defrauding the U.S. hospital, taking advantage of discounts reserved for impoverished American mothers.[16][17] Some mothers will refuse to pay the bill for the medical care received during their hospital stay.[18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism
Pregnant women DAILY give birth in the US to the tune of 10-12 thousand on average. How many of those are day-trippers? Just to get a sense of the scale.
3
But I'm sure infowars has it around 25,000 mothers a day walk across the border to give birth for free in American hospitals!!!!
Let's say Trump somehow gets dictatorial powers and overturns the 14th. Logistics would be a nightmare. Birth certificates are typically issued by county or state agencies based on the information provided by the hospital/midwife/etc. Neither of which has the full ability to determine the citizenship status of parents, particularly when e.g. parents were born in another state etc. There is no federal agency that would provide proof of citizenship for US-born individuals. That's not even going into the citizen-father-absent-at-birth situations and the like.
It would most likely cause far more trouble for citizens than for foreigners.
Pregnant women DAILY give birth in the US to the tune of 10-12 thousand on average. How many of those are day-trippers? Just to get a sense of the scale.
It would most likely cause far more trouble for citizens than for foreigners.
Pregnant women DAILY hit US side border hospitals, have their baby and return to Mexico a few days later.
Pregnant women DAILY give birth in the US to the tune of 10-12 thousand on average. How many of those are day-trippers? Just to get a sense of the scale.
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.
I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted
I know. I see two issues with it today.
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.
Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.
Pregnant women DAILY hit US side border hospitals, have their baby and return to Mexico a few days later. Neither the mom, dad or child "reside" anywhere in the USA. It's no different than if I travel to Mexico and stay in a hotel. I do not reside in Mexico, I am only there for a few days.
Really this should be an issue that left and right can find agreement on.
I did not know that. And what are the US consulates in Mexico doing about it? I guess these ladies are trekking the hills without any visas.
The US government can fix this issue by not registering such births. Only a mother with a green card or a passport card should be allowed to register her babies in the Vital Records.
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.
I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted
I know. I see two issues with it today.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are c
itizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.
Pregnant women DAILY hit US side border hospitals, have their baby and return to Mexico a few days later. Neither the mom, dad or child "reside" anywhere in the USA. It's no different than if I travel to Mexico and stay in a hotel. I do not reside in Mexico, I am only there for a few days.
Really this should be an issue that left and right can find agreement on.
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.
I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted
I know. I see two issues with it today.
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.
Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.
From reddit:.....
>There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about.....
>There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about.....
One useful idiot there.
Stop this caravan, or the next is 100,000 and then 1,000,000, and then 10,000,000.
SO...
Who is behind it, and what is their motive?
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship. It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.
I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted
I guess since Melania's parents got the chain citizenship, he figures it is a good time to start limiting access for new citizens. Happy wife, happy life, eh?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/nyregion/melania-trumps-parents-become-us-citizens.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/nyregion/melania-trumps-parents-become-us-citizens.html
Being Dutch, it always stuck me as weird to become a citizen simply for being born somewhere. I never understood the reasoning behind it, we don't have it, so why would it be bad to change it? From what I've read, US citizenship is a burden when it comes to taxes if you don't live there.
From reddit:
If this is the full quote, why are they saying it's a lie? No other country makes a baby US citizen by birth, so technically it's correct. Quote
>* "We're 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 continued.
....
You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant. Get this through your thick skull.
O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes?
You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant. Get this through your thick skull.
O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes?
Might quite possibly have to apply to the drug cartels to be an illegal immigrant, since they really control the last section of Mexico by the US border.
From reddit:
Quote
Let's break this down into a couple of questions, because context is king:
**What's the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway?**
Basically, the rule is that if you're born in the USA, you're a US citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment states it pretty clearly. It begins:
>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.
If you're born in the USA, you have what's known as [*jus soli*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli) citizenship: citizenship by place of birth, as opposed to [*jus sanguinis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) citizenship, which comes from blood (that is to say, from your parents' citizenship). (There are *some* exceptions to this, like for example the children of diplomats who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', but these are rare. Generally speaking, if you pop a sprog between Canada and Mexico, that kid has US citizenship by birthright.) This has been considered pretty much a settled question in jurisprudence ever since about 1898, in [*United States v. Wong Kim Ark*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark).
**Why's everyone talking about this now?**
Trump noted [in an interview](https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html) that he wants to prevent the children of people who aren't US citizens who are born on US soil from automatically becoming US citizens themselves.
>* "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
>* When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
>* "We're 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 continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."
>* "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
**Is that right?**
Not even close.
The problem, at least as far as Trump is concerned, is that he can't actually do that. Changing a constitutional amendment is *hard*. He's *claimed* it just requires an executive order, but you can't overturn the Constitution by executive order and so he's shit out of luck. (If you don't believe me, you can at least believe [Paul Ryan](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/birthright-citizenship-executive-order-trump-paul-ryan/index.html), or any of [these eleven legal experts](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18042638/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-legal-experts). If you think this is a bad idea, I'd urge you to consider how you'd feel if a given President felt he could overturn the First, Second or Fifth Amendments with a single, unregulated stroke of the pen, and then get back to me. Hell, what if a President felt that he could overturn the Twenty-Second Amendment and do away with presidential term limits entirely?) It's also important to note Trump's sneaky little lie:
>We're 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
Yes, it is true that the USA is the only country in the world where a person is (not essentially but *actually and completely*) a citizen of the United States, but only because it'd be pretty strange if it were the case that being born in France, Rwanda or Equatorial Guinea could grant you US citizenship. About thirty countries, including Brazil and Canada, also have unrestricted *jus soli* citizenship. The USA is rare, perhaps, but by no means unique in that regard.
This also butts heads with another weird little quirk of US citizenship: if you're a US citizen, by *jus soli* or *jus sanguinis*, [you have to pay taxes to the US *even if you're not in the country*.](http://time.com/money/4298634/expat-expatriate-taxes-us-myths/) There's only one other country that taxes non-resident citizens in this way (and it's Eritrea, so if you guessed that ahead of time I'm very impressed). This has led to the situation where people who were born in the USA to foreign parents -- say, an early birth while on holiday -- are citizens of and must legally pay taxes to a country that they haven't been to since (and [also register for the draft](https://www.americansabroad.org/requirements-of-us-citizenship/)).
**Who told him he could do it?**
In the interview, Trump said, 'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order.' Who are *they*?
Well, no one knows as yet. The person to look out for is probably Trump's immigration *doyen* (read into that what you will), [Stephen Miller](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/stephen-miller-family-separation/563132/). Most of the big Trump immigration policies have come via Miller's office, including the Muslim travel ban(s), the separation of children from their parents at the border, discontinuation of funding to 'sanctuary cities', and The Wall™. *Politico* has noted that this is an idea that Miller has been [involved with previously in the Trump Administration](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-949660), so several news outlets are suggesting his potential involvement. (This may become very interesting in the coming days, if the rumoured Trump post-election shakeup happens; if Miller *has* had a lot of influence on this policy decision, his continuance as one of the most prominent faces in the Trump White House may wax or wane depending on the result of the midterms.)
**So what's the big deal?**
I know, I know... at this point, 'Trump says he's going to do something he can't legally do' is a bit of a [dog-bites-man news story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism\)), but this is coming only a week out from an extremely important mid-term election in which the Republicans are expected to lose the House (unlikely also the Senate, but the odds of that are still higher than people were giving Trump of winning in 2016, so who even knows at this point?). Tough talk on migrants riles up the Republican base, and Trump needs that turnout to have any chance of legislative victories in the two remaining years of his term.
This dovetails nicely with the migrant caravan that is currently moving through Mexico and heading towards the United States. Trump and other Republican higher-ups are using the opportunity to stoke fear into the hearts of voters, claiming -- incorrectly -- [that this is an invasion](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056919064906469376) (hyperbole), [that Democrats want an open border](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054354059535269888), [that there are gang members and Middle-Easterners using the caravan to sneak across the border](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054351078328885248) (no evidence), and that people crossing in the caravan are doing so illegally. It's the last that's the most insidious, especially given that [he tried to pull the same shit when it came to the child detention debacle earlier this year](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8s3bfa/what_is_the_deal_with_the_kids_in_concentration/e0we6r5/); in short, the caravan are not behaving illegally *yet*. The expectation is that when they arrive in the USA, the vast majority of them will claim asylum from the dangerous conditions in their home countries, which is a right granted by the USA to anyone on the planet.
This push for fear with regards to the caravan is pretty much everywhere because it works to get Republican-leaning individuals incensed enough to take the time out of their days to head to the polls. (Voter engagement is expected to be one of the Democrats' biggest advantages in the midterms, which are not traditionally considered a particularly sexy election cycle.) However, notable breaks from the President's rhetoric include Fox News anchor Shep Smith, who said on Monday:
>There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about. But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election — which is what all of this is about.
There is likely no better summation of the context of the story than that.
**What's the Fourteenth Amendment, anyway?**
Basically, the rule is that if you're born in the USA, you're a US citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment states it pretty clearly. It begins:
>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.
If you're born in the USA, you have what's known as [*jus soli*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli) citizenship: citizenship by place of birth, as opposed to [*jus sanguinis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) citizenship, which comes from blood (that is to say, from your parents' citizenship). (There are *some* exceptions to this, like for example the children of diplomats who aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', but these are rare. Generally speaking, if you pop a sprog between Canada and Mexico, that kid has US citizenship by birthright.) This has been considered pretty much a settled question in jurisprudence ever since about 1898, in [*United States v. Wong Kim Ark*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark).
**Why's everyone talking about this now?**
Trump noted [in an interview](https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html) that he wants to prevent the children of people who aren't US citizens who are born on US soil from automatically becoming US citizens themselves.
>* "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
>* When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."
>* "We're 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 continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end."
>* "It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."
**Is that right?**
Not even close.
The problem, at least as far as Trump is concerned, is that he can't actually do that. Changing a constitutional amendment is *hard*. He's *claimed* it just requires an executive order, but you can't overturn the Constitution by executive order and so he's shit out of luck. (If you don't believe me, you can at least believe [Paul Ryan](https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/birthright-citizenship-executive-order-trump-paul-ryan/index.html), or any of [these eleven legal experts](https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/18042638/trump-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-legal-experts). If you think this is a bad idea, I'd urge you to consider how you'd feel if a given President felt he could overturn the First, Second or Fifth Amendments with a single, unregulated stroke of the pen, and then get back to me. Hell, what if a President felt that he could overturn the Twenty-Second Amendment and do away with presidential term limits entirely?) It's also important to note Trump's sneaky little lie:
>We're 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
Yes, it is true that the USA is the only country in the world where a person is (not essentially but *actually and completely*) a citizen of the United States, but only because it'd be pretty strange if it were the case that being born in France, Rwanda or Equatorial Guinea could grant you US citizenship. About thirty countries, including Brazil and Canada, also have unrestricted *jus soli* citizenship. The USA is rare, perhaps, but by no means unique in that regard.
This also butts heads with another weird little quirk of US citizenship: if you're a US citizen, by *jus soli* or *jus sanguinis*, [you have to pay taxes to the US *even if you're not in the country*.](http://time.com/money/4298634/expat-expatriate-taxes-us-myths/) There's only one other country that taxes non-resident citizens in this way (and it's Eritrea, so if you guessed that ahead of time I'm very impressed). This has led to the situation where people who were born in the USA to foreign parents -- say, an early birth while on holiday -- are citizens of and must legally pay taxes to a country that they haven't been to since (and [also register for the draft](https://www.americansabroad.org/requirements-of-us-citizenship/)).
**Who told him he could do it?**
In the interview, Trump said, 'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order.' Who are *they*?
Well, no one knows as yet. The person to look out for is probably Trump's immigration *doyen* (read into that what you will), [Stephen Miller](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/stephen-miller-family-separation/563132/). Most of the big Trump immigration policies have come via Miller's office, including the Muslim travel ban(s), the separation of children from their parents at the border, discontinuation of funding to 'sanctuary cities', and The Wall™. *Politico* has noted that this is an idea that Miller has been [involved with previously in the Trump Administration](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-949660), so several news outlets are suggesting his potential involvement. (This may become very interesting in the coming days, if the rumoured Trump post-election shakeup happens; if Miller *has* had a lot of influence on this policy decision, his continuance as one of the most prominent faces in the Trump White House may wax or wane depending on the result of the midterms.)
**So what's the big deal?**
I know, I know... at this point, 'Trump says he's going to do something he can't legally do' is a bit of a [dog-bites-man news story](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_bites_dog_(journalism\)), but this is coming only a week out from an extremely important mid-term election in which the Republicans are expected to lose the House (unlikely also the Senate, but the odds of that are still higher than people were giving Trump of winning in 2016, so who even knows at this point?). Tough talk on migrants riles up the Republican base, and Trump needs that turnout to have any chance of legislative victories in the two remaining years of his term.
This dovetails nicely with the migrant caravan that is currently moving through Mexico and heading towards the United States. Trump and other Republican higher-ups are using the opportunity to stoke fear into the hearts of voters, claiming -- incorrectly -- [that this is an invasion](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1056919064906469376) (hyperbole), [that Democrats want an open border](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054354059535269888), [that there are gang members and Middle-Easterners using the caravan to sneak across the border](https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1054351078328885248) (no evidence), and that people crossing in the caravan are doing so illegally. It's the last that's the most insidious, especially given that [he tried to pull the same shit when it came to the child detention debacle earlier this year](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8s3bfa/what_is_the_deal_with_the_kids_in_concentration/e0we6r5/); in short, the caravan are not behaving illegally *yet*. The expectation is that when they arrive in the USA, the vast majority of them will claim asylum from the dangerous conditions in their home countries, which is a right granted by the USA to anyone on the planet.
This push for fear with regards to the caravan is pretty much everywhere because it works to get Republican-leaning individuals incensed enough to take the time out of their days to head to the polls. (Voter engagement is expected to be one of the Democrats' biggest advantages in the midterms, which are not traditionally considered a particularly sexy election cycle.) However, notable breaks from the President's rhetoric include Fox News anchor Shep Smith, who said on Monday:
>There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about. But tomorrow is one week before the midterm election — which is what all of this is about.
There is likely no better summation of the context of the story than that.
.....the wall that he hasn't built a single foot of yet nor is Mexico ever paying for it LOL nor is congress ever going to fund it LOL.
Really?
You might want to check your facts there.
Or not, and we'll see how much you care about facts.
You are confused. You are conflating the taxation system with the immigration system.
There is only legal immigration. If you move and live in the country illegally, you are an outlaw. Nothing to do with immigration.
Calling people who break the law immigrants you are insulting the real immigrants.
You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant. Get this through your thick skull.
O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes?
There is only legal immigration. If you move and live in the country illegally, you are an outlaw. Nothing to do with immigration.
Calling people who break the law immigrants you are insulting the real immigrants.
You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant. Get this through your thick skull.
O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes?
Because all immigrants (sue me) speak Spanish, right?
I don't feel insulted by me using a dictionary definition of "immigrant" so I'm gonna stick to that I think. You can use whatever makes you happy.
Nope. Look up the Immigration Act for legal definitions.
You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process. Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant. You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw.
You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process. Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant. You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw.
I'm very familiar with the immigration process as well as the dictionary. Immigrant is a person who moves to another country. A driver is a driver even if they're drunk and operate a vehicle illegally. BTW there was no "legal" or "illegal" immigration at the time when the 14th amendment was passed so this is particularly meaningless in the context.
Also "alien" doesn't mean "people who visit the country" like you were trying to imply, there is such a thing as a resident alien. You can use any cockamamie definitions you want, just cut this liberal snowflake pussy hat bullshit when someone uses the non-PC words you don't like
(I'm kinda enjoying this, I might be a closet Republican).You are confused. You are conflating the taxation system with the immigration system.
There is only legal immigration. If you move and live in the country illegally, you are an outlaw. Nothing to do with immigration.
Calling people who break the law immigrants you are insulting the real immigrants.
You cannot apply to be an illegal immigrant. Get this through your thick skull.
O debemos hablar en espanol? Que no entiendes?
Its almost like the country was designed for people to come here from other places and become citizens. 
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
Easy just like the rest of the world...the nationality of your parents. That's how it works here in Europe...eeeexcept for France and they are happy about it
Check those places called 'banlieues'.This is very problematic because there are millions of Americans who will have no way to prove their parents citizenship. It seems like it opens the door for people to be excommunicated for political reasons.
You mean like a Democratic president in the future going after Eric, Don jr and Ivanka because there mother wasn't a citizen when they were born?
The Pussy grabber isn't doing fuck all about the birthright citizenship, Suchmoon is 100% right it is just more campaign red meat with no substance. Kind of like the wall that he hasn't built a single foot of yet nor is Mexico ever paying for it LOL nor is congress ever going to fund it LOL.
Nope. Look up the Immigration Act for legal definitions.
You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process. Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant. You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw.
You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process. Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant. You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw.
I'm very familiar with the immigration process as well as the dictionary. Immigrant is a person who moves to another country. A driver is a driver even if they're drunk and operate a vehicle illegally. BTW there was no "legal" or "illegal" immigration at the time when the 14th amendment was passed so this is particularly meaningless in the context.
Also "alien" doesn't mean "people who visit the country" like you were trying to imply, there is such a thing as a resident alien. You can use any cockamamie definitions you want, just cut this liberal snowflake pussy hat bullshit when someone uses the non-PC words you don't like
(I'm kinda enjoying this, I might be a closet Republican).Its almost like the country was designed for people to come here from other places and become citizens.
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
Easy just like the rest of the world...the nationality of your parents. That's how it works here in Europe...eeeexcept for France and they are happy about it
Check those places called 'banlieues'.This is very problematic because there are millions of Americans who will have no way to prove their parents citizenship. It seems like it opens the door for people to be excommunicated for political reasons.
Any child born in the US is a US citizen by the 14th amendment, neither parent even has to be a citizen... an executive order by Trump cannot change a constitutional amendment
Even if only 1 parent is a citizen and the baby is born in a foreign country, the baby is a US citizen, so long as the parent was physically present in the US or a US territory within the last 5 years
If you want to read more, feel free, here is a link:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html
I'm aware of the current interpretation and I agree, Trump thinking he can pencil whip a change to the constitution is a slap in the face of over a hundred years of precedent.
My question was if the republicans could remove birthright citizenship what would they do about the baby in this situation.
The hypothetical is relevant because a very powerful Republican man had 3 kids with a women who wasn't an American citizen.
One parent is enough. Once citizenship is granted, it does not matter if your parents die or renounce their citizenship, you still have yours and can pass on to your children. In most countries, children of citizens (one or both parents) can claim their citizenship, regardless if they were born in the country or not.
The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly. People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.
I'm aware of the current interpretation and I agree, Trump thinking he can pencil whip a change to the constitution is a slap in the face of over a hundred years of precedent.
My question was if the republicans could remove birthright citizenship what would they do about the baby in this situation.
The hypothetical is relevant because a very powerful Republican man had 3 kids with a women who wasn't an American citizen.
My question was if the republicans could remove birthright citizenship what would they do about the baby in this situation.
The hypothetical is relevant because a very powerful Republican man had 3 kids with a women who wasn't an American citizen.
I think you are exploiting the conflation between REVOKING existing citizenship and ENDING birthright citizenship to the children of non-citizens.
Any child born in the US is a US citizen by the 14th amendment, neither parent even has to be a citizen... an executive order by Trump cannot change a constitutional amendment
Even if only 1 parent is a citizen and the baby is born in a foreign country, the baby is a US citizen, so long as the parent was physically present in the US or a US territory within the last 5 years
If you want to read more, feel free, here is a link:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html
I'm aware of the current interpretation and I agree, Trump thinking he can pencil whip a change to the constitution is a slap in the face of over a hundred years of precedent.
My question was if the republicans could remove birthright citizenship what would they do about the baby in this situation.
The hypothetical is relevant because a very powerful Republican man had 3 kids with a women who wasn't an American citizen.
Quote
So what should happen to a baby born in the US to an American citizen father and a non American citizen mother?
Sounds like a pretty unique circumstance that could be interpreted by the courts if they were to go back to the original definition, or at least the definition that the author was trying to get across, as was stated before!
Good question though.
I'm curious on your position on this situation tbh. Would you consider the baby to be an American citizen if birth right citizenship was revoked?
Any child born in the US is a US citizen by the 14th amendment, neither parent even has to be a citizen... an executive order by Trump cannot change a constitutional amendment
Even if only 1 parent is a citizen and the baby is born in a foreign country, the baby is a US citizen, so long as the parent was physically present in the US or a US territory within the last 5 years
If you want to read more, feel free, here is a link:
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html
Quote
So what should happen to a baby born in the US to an American citizen father and a non American citizen mother?
Sounds like a pretty unique circumstance that could be interpreted by the courts if they were to go back to the original definition, or at least the definition that the author was trying to get across, as was stated before!
Good question though.
I'm curious on your position on this situation tbh. Would you consider the baby to be an American citizen if birthright citizenship was revoked?
Quote
So what should happen to a baby born in the US to an American citizen father and a non American citizen mother?
Sounds like a pretty unique circumstance that could be interpreted by the courts if they were to go back to the original definition, or at least the definition that the author was trying to get across, as was stated before!
Good question though.
Huh?
Immigrants are legal residents. People who visit the country legally or illegally are aliens.
Residency implies a legal status.
I am not even sure why these anchor babies are given the citizenships, the 14th amendment does not apply to them, they do not reside in the US. I guess American lawyers cannot read.
Immigrants are legal residents. People who visit the country legally or illegally are aliens.
Residency implies a legal status.
I am not even sure why these anchor babies are given the citizenships, the 14th amendment does not apply to them, they do not reside in the US. I guess American lawyers cannot read.
"Immigrant" does not mean legal or illegal. It's a person who moves to another country.
Nope. Look up the Immigration Act for legal definitions.
You should familiarize yourself with the immigration process. Moving to another country without going through the immigration process does not make you an immigrant. You are a visitor, a tourist, a refugee or an outlaw.
Its almost like the country was designed for people to come here from other places and become citizens.
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
Easy just like the rest of the world...the nationality of your parents. That's how it works here in Europe...eeeexcept for France and they are happy about it
Check those places called 'banlieues'. Is this also to influence future votes? Get rid of those who would likely vote against him. I would say thank dog for 14th amendment, but I don't see checks and balances working very well in US anymore. A lot of Trumps statements and intentions worry me, because US have great influence around the world.
I believe you are absolutely right. He knows well the way to follow for holding the position. And in comeing days, he may take some hard actions against the group of people who didn't support him and non native american. He may impose several laws for our country but i believe he will think deeply from 360o angel. He should think more that there are also legal imigrrants who are contributing a lot in the US economy.
However, Mr. Trumph is efficient in planing the ♠ Trump card ♠ on time.
Its almost like the country was designed for people to come here from other places and become citizens.
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
If you could get rid of birthright citizenship (you can't, but lets assume you could), then how do you determine who is a citizen and who is not?
Hm.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
Quote from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/30/can-trump-end-birthright-citizenship/#76c466c61c44
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 begins:
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
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.
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
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.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
So what should happen to a baby born in the US to an American citizen father and a non American citizen mother?
Huh?
Immigrants are legal residents. People who visit the country legally or illegally are aliens.
Residency implies a legal status.
I am not even sure why these anchor babies are given the citizenships, the 14th amendment does not apply to them, they do not reside in the US. I guess American lawyers cannot read.
Immigrants are legal residents. People who visit the country legally or illegally are aliens.
Residency implies a legal status.
I am not even sure why these anchor babies are given the citizenships, the 14th amendment does not apply to them, they do not reside in the US. I guess American lawyers cannot read.
"Immigrant" does not mean legal or illegal. It's a person who moves to another country.
I guess it comes to the definition of "reside". Do Russian tourists and their US-born babies reside in the US?
If "reside" means a legal residency status, then you have your answer.
When you visit a country for a medical treatment, do you reside in that country?
When you crossed a border illegally, you work without a permit, and you physically live in the country without a residency status, do you "reside" in that country or you are simply an outlaw who remains at large?
If "reside" means a legal residency status, then you have your answer.
When you visit a country for a medical treatment, do you reside in that country?
When you crossed a border illegally, you work without a permit, and you physically live in the country without a residency status, do you "reside" in that country or you are simply an outlaw who remains at large?
The amendment doesn't say anything about "legal residency status" so... no?
BTW immigrants are not all either illegals or citizens. There is a substantial part of the population that are perfectly legal, not citizens, and would get fucked tremendously bigly if this gets to pass.
Hopefully this is just a dog whistle (sorry dogtana) for immigration hardliners and it's unlikely to survive any serious legal challenge. Trump will probably forget about it after the election.
Huh?
Immigrants are legal residents. People who visit the country legally or illegally are aliens.
Residency implies a legal status.
I am not even sure why these anchor babies are given the citizenships, the 14th amendment does not apply to them, they do not reside in the US. I guess American lawyers cannot read.
Hm.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
Quote from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/10/30/can-trump-end-birthright-citizenship/#76c466c61c44
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 begins:
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
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.
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…
Sen. Jacob Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1866, Sen. Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause:
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.
The meaning was not as it is being interpreted as of right now. This is being abused for the 'anchor babies' as Jeb Bush once said!
That's not how it works. They come across in south Texas late in their term, head to a public hospital and pop out a baby. Bingo, he's a citizen.
No papers, no money paid, nada.
No papers, no money paid, nada.
LOL, yeah, don't forget THE CARAVAN. Everybody in it is pregnant with twins.
Kek, like a prego woman's gonna get entry to the states.
Ms Prego will be admitted if the paperwork is in order. The CBP agent may ask if she has money to pay for medical expenses.
That's not how it works. They come across in south Texas late in their term, head to a public hospital and pop out a baby. Bingo, he's a citizen.
No papers, no money paid, nada.
Kek, like a prego woman's gonna get entry to the states.
Ms Prego will be admitted if the paperwork is in order. The CBP agent may ask if she has money to pay for medical expenses.
That's interesting.
Imagine it this way. I am a [insert nationality] and I go on holiday to US with my pregnant wife. My wife gives birth and the child receives US citizenship. We, [insert nationality] have a better chance to receive a permanent VISA since our child has the nationality.
Let me explain you further: If you [insert nationality] were to go to US and merry a US woman, you would nearly instantly be able to apply for citizenship.
Imagine it this way. I am a [insert nationality] and I go on holiday to US with my pregnant wife. My wife gives birth and the child receives US citizenship. We, [insert nationality] have a better chance to receive a permanent VISA since our child has the nationality.
Let me explain you further: If you [insert nationality] were to go to US and merry a US woman, you would nearly instantly be able to apply for citizenship.
Kek, like a prego woman's gonna get entry to the states.
"merry" = joy, you're looking for marry.
And even with an anchor child or marriage, it takes years to become a citizen.
Anyone born on this soil is an American, regardless of who their parents are.
That's interesting.
Imagine it this way. I am a [insert nationality] and I go on holiday to US with my pregnant wife. My wife gives birth and the child receives US citizenship. We, [insert nationality] have a better chance to receive a permanent VISA since our child has the nationality.
Let me explain you further: If you [insert nationality] were to go to US and merry a US woman, you would nearly instantly be able to apply for citizenship.
Imagine it this way. I am a [insert nationality] and I go on holiday to US with my pregnant wife. My wife gives birth and the child receives US citizenship. We, [insert nationality] have a better chance to receive a permanent VISA since our child has the nationality.
Let me explain you further: If you [insert nationality] were to go to US and merry a US woman, you would nearly instantly be able to apply for citizenship.
You're confused. A child can't give parents "a better chance to receive a permanent VISA" until he/she is 18 (or is it 21?). Marriage doesn't give you instant citizenship either.
That's interesting.
Imagine it this way. I am a [insert nationality] and I go on holiday to US with my pregnant wife. My wife gives birth and the child receives US citizenship. We, [insert nationality] have a better chance to receive a permanent VISA since our child has the nationality.
Let me explain you further: If you [insert nationality] were to go to US and merry a US woman, you would nearly instantly be able to apply for citizenship.
Imagine it this way. I am a [insert nationality] and I go on holiday to US with my pregnant wife. My wife gives birth and the child receives US citizenship. We, [insert nationality] have a better chance to receive a permanent VISA since our child has the nationality.
Let me explain you further: If you [insert nationality] were to go to US and merry a US woman, you would nearly instantly be able to apply for citizenship.
His rhetoric is disgraceful. America wasn't created for these reasons. I think all main stream media needs to air this.
Public Service Announcement to ALL Americans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4
===
How long until my family is targeted? It's a serious question; anyone here born in the United States being deported? Fuck that noise. The president doesn't have that right, fuck off with that bullshit.
I can renounce MY American citizen, fuck if anyone has the ability to do it for me.
Public Service Announcement to ALL Americans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGAqYNFQdZ4
===
Quote
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
How long until my family is targeted? It's a serious question; anyone here born in the United States being deported? Fuck that noise. The president doesn't have that right, fuck off with that bullshit.
I can renounce MY American citizen, fuck if anyone has the ability to do it for me.
The President has direct executive authority over concerns of immigration. It is pretty clearly defined.
This is not about admitting someone into the country - this is about people who are already in the country and their offspring.
Nor can the president override the constitution.
The President has direct executive authority over concerns of immigration. It is pretty clearly defined.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
I guess it comes to the definition of "reside". Do Russian tourists and their US-born babies reside in the US?
If "reside" means a legal residency status, then you have your answer.
When you visit a country for a medical treatment, do you reside in that country?
When you crossed a border illegally, you work without a permit, and you physically live in the country without a residency status, do you "reside" in that country or you are simply an outlaw who remains at large?
If "reside" means a legal residency status, then you have your answer.
When you visit a country for a medical treatment, do you reside in that country?
When you crossed a border illegally, you work without a permit, and you physically live in the country without a residency status, do you "reside" in that country or you are simply an outlaw who remains at large?
The amendment doesn't say anything about "legal residency status" so... no?
BTW immigrants are not all either illegals or citizens. There is a substantial part of the population that are perfectly legal, not citizens, and would get fucked tremendously bigly if this gets to pass.
Hopefully this is just a dog whistle (sorry dogtana) for immigration hardliners and it's unlikely to survive any serious legal challenge. Trump will probably forget about it after the election.
The problem lies in the definition of the United States. Generally in legal circles, United States means the 10 square miles of D.C., and the forts and other lands that have been ceded to the U.S. Government, as the Constitution says. The 50 States might have U.S. Gov lands in them, like national forest and wilderness lands, but these have never been ceded to U.S. Gov. So, they are not really part of the United States.
What this means is that people who have been born somewhere in the 50 States, but were never born on Federal Gov ceded land, are not, and never have been, United States citizens by birthright. All that Trump is doing is bringing this out into the open.
Why is Trump bringing this out into the open? To free us from the authority of Fed Gov. As citizens of one of the 50 States, we have all the rights of Fed Citizens. But we have lost freedoms because of the 14th Amendment that is essentially making us slaves of Fed Gov. If we aren't citizens of Fed Gov, we still have the rights, but without 14th Amendment requirements to obey Fed Gov laws while we are within one of the 50 States.
This is a benefit to us. It lets local people rule themselves, rather than being ruled by the Federal Government.
Why do non-U.S. people who were born in one of the 50 States have the rights of Fed Gov? Because all 50 States in their Constitutions state that they also follow all the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
What this means is that people who have been born somewhere in the 50 States, but were never born on Federal Gov ceded land, are not, and never have been, United States citizens by birthright. All that Trump is doing is bringing this out into the open.
Why is Trump bringing this out into the open? To free us from the authority of Fed Gov. As citizens of one of the 50 States, we have all the rights of Fed Citizens. But we have lost freedoms because of the 14th Amendment that is essentially making us slaves of Fed Gov. If we aren't citizens of Fed Gov, we still have the rights, but without 14th Amendment requirements to obey Fed Gov laws while we are within one of the 50 States.
This is a benefit to us. It lets local people rule themselves, rather than being ruled by the Federal Government.
Why do non-U.S. people who were born in one of the 50 States have the rights of Fed Gov? Because all 50 States in their Constitutions state that they also follow all the tenets of the U.S. Constitution.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 14th amendment:
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
Quote
Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO."
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 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.
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
Just wow!
You know we got lots of room for you up here in the great white north, the basement is not the place for an honoured guest, you're welcome to my ice fishing hut for as long as you like! Can you handle UHC, kids not being massacred at school, the elderly not being slaughtered at church, a non racist leader, Maple syrup, weed, real beer and people that aren't terrified of make believe bogey men? If you can handle the harsh brand of communism here I say come on by and we'll have a smoke/drink and a chat and get you all set up!
We do ask politely that you leave the military hardware at the door before coming in please and thank you!
*for the children of illegal aliens
Is this also to influence future votes? Get rid of those who would likely vote against him. I would say thank dog for 14th amendment, but I don't see checks and balances working very well in US anymore. A lot of Trumps statements and intentions worry me, because US have great influence around the world.
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 14th amendment:
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
Quote
Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO."
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 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.
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
I guess it comes to the definition of "reside". Do Russian tourists and their US-born babies reside in the US?
If "reside" means a legal residency status, then you have your answer.
When you visit a country for a medical treatment, do you reside in that country?
When you crossed a border illegally, you work without a permit, and you physically live in the country without a residency status, do you "reside" in that country or you are simply an outlaw who remains at large?
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 14th amendment:
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.
Quote
Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO."
Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 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.
Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.
FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.