Posted on 10/31/2018 12:33:12 PM PDT by Starman417
History, as the saying goes, is a lie agreed upon and there has perhaps been no bigger lie detrimental to the future national security and economic well-being of the United States that the 14th Amendment, clearly written to protect the rights of African-American slaves liberated by the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, somehow confers citizenship on the offspring of anybody whose pregnant and can sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol.
U.S. citizenship is rendered meaningless if it is defined as an accident of geography and it is the clear that this was not the intention authors of those who wrote the 14 Amendment and shepherded it into the Constitution. President Trump has rightly targeted birthright citizenship as an historical error that needs to be corrected:
President Trump said in a newly released interview he plans to sign an executive order ending so-called "birthright citizenship" for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil -- a move that would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and trigger an almost-certain legal battle….Anton is stunningly correct and clearly echoes the sentiments and legislative intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. The only question is whether this historical error is better corrected though a clarifying amendment, legislation or through a Trump executive order. GOP Rep. Steve King, R-IA, has proposed legislation:Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”
In January of this year, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 (HR 140) that seeks to amend current law by making requirements for citizenship more narrow, and, in King’s opinion, more constitutional. …But some would argue that no clarifying legislation is necessary and that as a result of President Trump’s appointment of originalist interpreters of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, the original intent of the 14 Amendment can be restored.“A Century ago it didn’t matter very much that a practice began that has now grown into a birthright citizenship, an anchor baby agenda,” King said. “When they started granting automatic citizenship on all babies born in the United States they missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal immigrants. That has got to stop.”…
King’s bill seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill states that a person born in the United States is a citizen if one parent is “(1) a citizen or national of the United States, (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.”
The Supreme Court has never said birthright citizenship is constitutional and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote it.
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net...
Let’s assume the drafters of that amendment were not morons. They had a choice between:
1. “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,”
and
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They chose and ratified the second version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. The children of parents with foreign citizenship and no legal residency are constrained by our laws but are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ home government, not that of the United States. President Trump is correct.
The most noteworthy thing that happened in the last news cycle is the pitbull-like ferocity that the media, Fox News included, came to George Soros’ defense. The dark lord Sith’s minions are everywhere.
If children of ambassadors who are legally in this country don't qualify for citizenship how could anyone conclude that people here illegally can have their offspring qualify as American citizens? - Tom
So those born to illegals are deported to Northern Mexico. This group then takes over the area, and asks to become part of the US. Is that the plan?
"The US is not required to give asylum since they were originally offered asylum in Mexico and turned it down...
International law states that they must request asylum in the FIRST country outside of their home country...If they don’t, we aren’t required to give it..."
Absolutely correct!
If children of ambassadors who are legally in this country don’t qualify for citizenship how could anyone conclude that people here illegally can have their offspring qualify as American citizens? - Tom
**************
Exactly. This cannot be repeated enough.
No, the plan is to flood this country with fraudulently documented foreigners to force US into another amnesty (tried for in 2006. 2007 & 2013) which would balloon the current 30 million illegal aliens to 100 million and fundamentally transform the USA into North Mexico.
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.