Posted on 09/05/2017 12:31:25 AM PDT by Boomer
If Congress enacts a law saying that there is no such thing as birthright citizenship, and that is the correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and forbids any court from jurisdiction in the matter, that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Constitution is all that is needed.
Congress has always had the power to check the Supreme Court on any matter but never uses it, because they can deny responsibility and say," Well, the Court has ruled..."
Yesterday I went to a local Walmart. In front of me in line were 3 obvious illegals. The counter was piled high with clothes and other things. The girl who looked to be in her 20’s had an attitude and kept smirking and giving hateful looks to those behind them.
The real kicker is when, after a 30 minute checkout of their stash. the guy pulls out a Hoosier Works card which the taxpayers paid for all that loot.
So when are the benefits and freebies going to end? When will these people be deported?
“Completely fund a wall, ban sanctuary cities, strengthen the Canadian border, put a number on legal immigration and visas, severely limit entitlements and end birthright citizenship and we can discuss DACA.”
Not to be argumentative but what then would be the basis of citizenship?
If my children aren't citizens just because they were born here what is the standard?
Your statute will have to spell that out.
It seems obvious that the only “birthright citizenship” is to children born to parents who both are citizens at the time of birth.
So if I marry an immigrant who's going through the naturalization process our child wouldn't be a citizen?
What about two immigrants who have green cards and are becoming citizens and who have a child. At what point could that child become a citizen?
It seems like this would create a very large class of people who are born here to legal residents but not citizens.
A similar experience a few days ago. In the express aisle was a customer who doubled the maximum total with her purchases. She had two children and looked pregnant. Included in her purchases were multiple packages of meat, many cases of soda, etc. The cashier told her in English about the 12 items (or whatever) or less policy. The woman kept loading. Then the cashier said it in Spanish. The customer looked at the sign, shrugged her shoulders and responded to the cashier in Spanish. The cashier accepted the items. Out came the freebie card. Approximately $88 worth of items for free. The customer or cashier never apologized to me or others in line who followed the rules.
I’m always curious, what would we do if China decided to load 200 ships with undesireables and run them up on the American shoreline? Any gusses?
It was never the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to give citizenship to the children of aliens. If you will look at my tagline, that phrase comes from John Bingham's statement on the 14th amendment of which he was the primary author of the amendment.
There are other statements by members of congress at the time that indicated they had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of non resident aliens.
Birthright citizenship is contained in the 14th amendment. I don’t think ‘a simple act of Congress” can fix that. Sounds like it has the Constitution has to be amended.
I'm not sure either but what if it was clarified by congress to not mean what criminal aliens think it means. Clarify it to close that misunderstood loophole to mean the slaves and not just anyone stealing their way into America.
Well, it is still unlikely those other fools in Congress will act. Maybe the House, the Senate - NEVER.
Congress would have to amend the Amendment to clarify this or the lunatics in the liberal Federal Courts would overturn it.
What a lot of people fail to realize is the COURTS are the problem in the FIRST place.
We need to have a way to allow Congress to overturn Court decisions that illogical. But then we need a Congress willing to do that, and the only way we will get it is if we have TERM LIMITS.
The COURTS created this mess in the FIRST place when they decreed illegal aliens breaking the law by being here, were entitled to welfare, education, and all the other benefits enjoyed by legal citizens and resident aliens. THAT generated a flood of illegals.
Fist, END DACA. Period.
Second, this country has never had "birthright citizenship" and in fact, no country in the world has it.
The Trump Administration should challenge "birthright citizenship" all the way up to the USSC which is where this issue needs to go once and for all.
I'd expect the USSC to properly interpret the Constitution where it explicitly states that both parents are under the legal jurisdiction of the Government of the United States of America in order for a child born here to be a US Citizen.
Once that's done, there is no "birthright citizenship" (a complete misnomer of a term) here in the United States.
That by itself makes deportation of entire families that are here ILLEGALLY a much simpler matter of law.
Case closed.
DACA is Caca!! DACA es Obama’s Caca!!
We should make a rhyme.
DACA is obama CaCa
Antifa is commie CaCa
Why all the leftist shit?
Oh well; I tried.
Legal residents aren’t citizens.
See post 54 for the explanation.
“Birthright citizenship” is a construct from the mind of ONE Supreme Court justice—William O. Douglas in a 1982 minority opinion. It blossomed from there.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment had a specific legal meaning according to the framer of the Amendment, John Bingham.
A foreigner even though here, is ultimately and legally subject to the jurisdiction of his home country. Any children he has here, are citizens of the country of its parents, not automatically US citizens.
I know.
By your standard Barron Trump isn't a citizen, and damn sure not a natural born citizen, because Melania didn't attain citizenship until several months after his birth.
I'm not arguing what should be, only what is and what it would mean to change it.
A politician's opinion aside, 'jurisdiction'' has a legal meaning and it isn't complicated.
If you're not subject to a country's jurisdiction, you're not subject to it's laws.
Mr. Bingham should have had someone else draft his amendment if he didn't understand the terms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.