Posted on 08/20/2015 2:54:46 PM PDT by Biggirl
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's call to end birthright citizenship in the United States could revive a similar proposal in Congress that never gained traction despite past support from top leaders, in Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
.
You don’t need a bill to end it, since it doesn’t exist in the first place.
Ummmm, maybe he should use EOs. Unless the nuclear rule is invoked in the Senate, the ‘rats can probably filibuster.
Isn't Ttump only a citizen because his foreigner mother gave birth to him in the United States? Isn't he going to voluntarily give up his citizenship and move back to Scotland?
They can’t “filiobuster” the 14th amendment!
It specifically prohibits citizenship to those born to parents not here under the jurisdiction of the US (illegals)
I do not think so.
Trump’s mother was here legally, so he is protected by the 14th, just as illegals are denied that citizenship by the same amendment.
“You don’t need a bill to end it, since it doesn’t exist in the first place”
“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.”
What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2139082/posts
MORE:
Using native Americans as a reference to show that “born on soil” does not always confer “natural born Citizen” status:
“After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to ‘{All} persons BORN or naturalized in the United States,’ that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of OTHER sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” (emphases mine)
http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm
STE=Q
“You don’t need a bill to end it, since it doesn’t exist in the first place.”
Winner!
A bill to end something that isn’t there and never was.
How could the framers of the 14th Amendment have drawn a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, when the concept of illegal immigration didn't exist in the 19th century?
You are mistaken.
The legality of citizenship was important to the writers of the 14th.
That is why they wrote “under the jurisdiction.” Illegals are obviously not under the jurisdiction, they snuck in.
But at the time the 14th Amendment was written and enacted, there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant." The term and concept did not exist until much later.
Are you a complete moron?
The 14th created the concept of a legal birth to foreign parents by describing it.
And, for what it's worth, illegals are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States (and the individual states). If an illegal commits a crime, he can be arrested (by U.S. law enforcement), charged (by a U.S. prosecutor), prosecuted (before a U.S. court), and sentenced (by the U.S. court). Diplomats, by contrast, are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. - they are immune from arrest/prosecution/conviction if they commit crimes here.
I agree with you. The 14th, if you look at the COngressional discussion is clear, and has been willfully misinterpreted, both by Brennan (his famous footnote) and more overtly, by Obama.
But, if for some reason, a Trump administration decided not to interpret the 14th itself, but to pass a bill defining (or re-defining) citizenship, yes, it could be filibustered.
.
>> “What is done cannot be reversed” <<
Sorry, illegal birthright citizenship is imaginary. It hasn’t “been done.”
You must be a leftist to cling to such foolishness,
No, I'm not. The first laws governing who can and cannot enter the U.S. (i.e., defining who may legally immigrate here, and who immigrates here illegally) were not passed until well after the 14th Amendment was enacted:
The origins of illegal immigration date to the late nineteenth century. In 1875, a federal law was passed which prohibited entry of convicts and prostitutes. In 1882 President Chester A. Arthur banned almost all Chinese immigration to the United States, and shortly thereafter barred paupers, criminals and the mentally ill from entering. Although this affected only a small percentage of immigrants, there were now distinctions between legal and illegal immigration. Before this, immigration was barely regulated. (source)
There would be no reason to proceed with such feckless foolishness.
Acts of congress cannot modify the effect of any part of the constitution.
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.