Posted on 10/30/2018 5:20:54 AM PDT by SleeperCatcher
Executive Action: POTUS Donald Trump may be setting himself up for a huge constitutional battle if reports that he’s preparing to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship are accurate.
Axios reported exclusively:
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for “Axios on HBO,” a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.
The order would be one of the most dramatic moves yet by the president as his immigration reform agenda continues to be thwarted by Democrats in Congress and far too many RINOs, though that could all change in less than two weeks of a legitimate red wave sweeps the midterm elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenationalsentinel.com ...
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the key.
But it does.
I don't think Lincoln was a great President. Much of our overbearing government in Washington DC can be directly traced to his grab of power. Also the nation certainly didn't need the 750,00-2 million dead from the civil war.
That's true. Usually it requires a judicial decree to change the Constitution. Of course Abe Lincoln did it with executive orders, but that was 150 years ago.
Yes, he can do it by regulation, see:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
That’s the whole point. The “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has never been addressed by SCOTUS. Does mere physical presence (even if illegal) on US soil make one “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” for the purpose of birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment?
“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,...”
If a woman illegally crosses the border carrying a child and delivers that child on American soil it is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Those who are naturalized have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States in order to become citizens.
Of course any federal judge nominated by a democrat president will almost certainly rule that I don’t have a clue but those nominated by Donald Trump may be more realistic.
Is the guy who murdered Kate Steinle subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If not, why is he being held? On what authority?
Is the guy who murdered Mollie Tibbetts subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If not, on what authority is he being held? In whose courts will his case be heard, and who will have control of his body during that process?
And if Mexico were to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus for both of these killers, based on lack of jurisdiction, what would you say?
W H Y
N O T ??
This is correct, but it wasn't about slavery or discrimination. The power blocks of the North hated black people too, but they wanted to use them to secure more political power in congress, and *that* is why they did it.
By giving former slaves citizenship and the right to vote, they believed they would cement a power block that would always support their agenda, and in any case, would further punish the South for daring to challenge New York/Washington DC's control of their economic production.
Concern for the well being of black people was not their main reason for doing what they did. Securing power and punishing the South were.
“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,...”
I am not a lawyer or judge but I am fairly certain that clause has a definite meaning and I don’t think it was added for no reason. To interpret it to mean that anyone born on American soil is a citizen, regardless of whether the mother may have entered the country illegally an hour before the birth, is to say that it was added for no reason and has no meaning.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if our side had questioned some of the one-vote wins she’s been involved in during the past few years? One can’t help but think, like so many political things, it’s all rigged to get the result they want but still somewhat pacifying their conservative supporters.
Not really. Most lawyers claim it does, but if you examine the debates on the 14th, you will find that the chief author, John Bingham, specifically said this class of people (transient aliens) will be excluded.
The dominant decision on the subject is Wong Kim Ark, but Wong Kim Ark was a legal resident, he was not an illegal alien.
Also you might want to see George Will and Ann Coulter's opinion about how we got here from there.
Maybe the best ever.
I would say SEND THEM BACK TO MEXICO!!! Let them ROT in a Mexican jail!!!!
Good for you. Cyber condom lets you sleep with $2.00 whore.
YIPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Not a good example. If you kill Americans, we will *MAKE* you subject to our jurisdiction, even if you commit your act in a foreign country. Our jurisdiction is world wide in that regard. Hardly a basis for giving someone citizenship.
$2.00 whore blog, that is. $2.00 whore requires thicker condom.
If you read the debates on the 14th, and the later statements of the congressmen and senators involved in passing it, they clarify what they meant. Oddly enough, the verbiage was much clearer as to what they meant before they changed it to it's final form.
The civil rights act of 1866 was the precursor to the 14th, and it is quite clear as to their intentions.
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.