Posted on 08/06/2024 11:50:46 AM PDT by Macho MAGA Man
— If Donald Trump is elected in November (not a foregone conclusion) would he attempt to plug the anchor baby loophole?
That’s the insane policy by which babies born to illegal alien mothers on U.S. soil receive automatic birthright citizenship.
Thus, American nationality policy is taken from U.S. lawmakers and turned over to foreign lawbreakers.
It’s outrageous.
A recent NBC article covers this issue.
“Trump’s call to end birthright citizenship would face a mountain of opposition,” the headline reads.
In May of last year, Trump released a campaign video … saying he would sign an executive order on day one of his presidency that would ensure that children born to parents who do not have legal status in the U.S. will not be considered U.S. citizens.
“The United States is among the only countries in the world that says even if neither parent is a citizen or even lawfully in the country, their future children are automatic citizens the moment the parents trespass onto our soil,” Trump said in the video.
The usual suspects scream bloody murder, but many ordinary Americans would support plugging this ridiculous loophole.
Birthright citizenship has long been understood to be required under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The language was included in the constitutional amendment enacted after the Civil War to ensure that Black former slaves and their children were recognized as citizens.
It was drafted to guarantee the citizenship of black former slaves, not for the children of illegal invaders.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the state where they reside.
If the parents are here on passports, they are subject to the jurisdiction / country that issued their passports.
The 14th Amendment makes anchor babies statutory citizens. If a statute has to make one a citizen, that’s not natural born.
No one ever legally challenged Obama, so it's probably a mute point now. His father, at least purported to be his father, was not a US citizen.
Mr. Wall is right. I hope for the best👍🏻
No he’s not. She’s a Citizen but not a natural born Citizen.
Oops! Wrong reply! 😑
Let me simplify things for everyone, Democrats are a clear and present danger to the United States of America by virtue of their policy positions.
That much is true.
Check out the last sentence of the 12th Amendment.
The time to challenge her qualification to the presidency was four years ago.
Ya’ll are urinating into the wind.
NO, it does no such thing. It granted citizenship and ensured equal rights to former slaves. That's IT. One time deal. No use in perpetuity for granting citizenship despite the misuse by the Courts.
If a statute has to make one a citizen, that’s not natural born.
The anchor baby STATUTE which you seek is USC 8 §1401.
Even Foundlings are covered FAM 301.1 Acquisition by Birth in the United States (bottom of page)
8 FAM 301.1-8 FOUNDLINGS
a. Under INA 301(f) (8 U.S.C. 1401(f)) (formerly Section 301(a)(6)) INA), a child of unknown parents is conclusively presumed to be a U.S. citizen if found in the United States when under 5 years of age, unless foreign birth is established before the child reaches age 21.
Drop the baby off anonymously at the fire station baby drop box? USC 8 baby.
You're feeding ignorance with your own ignorance.
I agree. Let’s take this opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. Let’s change the law to require only persons born of two citizen-parents within the jurisdiction to be ‘birthright citizens.’ The rest keep their foreign citizenship until their parents become naturalized U.S. citizens or reach the age of 21 when they can apply for naturalization themselves.
So we have been told by all the legal "experts" who don't actually bother to read the debates on the 14th amendment.
The people who actually discussed the law in Congress said it was a "naturalization" law.
And how could it be otherwise? Indians weren't covered by it until the 1920s. Were they not "born here" too?
The law was intended to make former slaves into "citizens", but nobody in 1868 would have said they were "natural born citizens."
Well this is true, but it's still fun to point out how ridiculous court decisions get cemented into our national system of governance.
From my perspective, any discussion that points out how ridiculous, corrupt and or stupid the courts are, is a good discussion.
We have idiots/liars running our courts nowadays.
If Repubs get control of Congress, maybe Congress could pass laws to stop the whole birthright/anchor baby citizenship mess. The filibuster would need to be suspended in the Senate however.
I don’t know if just issuing an Executive Order will do it.
Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers didn’t put clear language into the Constitution about what a natural born citizen is. The 14th Amendment may have been originally intended to deal with slavery, but it’s still part of the Constitution and it’s the law of the land.
As it stands now, if you’re a U.S. citizen, and you weren’t naturalized, then you’re natural born. I don’t think that’s the way it should be, but until we get a clear definition from Congress, a definition with no wiggle room, then we’re probably stuck with it.
Never mind. That can always happen 😀
All the best to you! 😀
Her parents were in fact subject to US jurisdiction.
My daughter-in-law was born in Venezuela and went through the naturalization process. Her younger brother was born here and even though her parents were not yet citizens they were still very much subject to US jurisdiction as green cards and therefore he was born a US citizen.
The problem is that although Mr. Harris entered US naturalization process and became a naturalized US citizen, Mrs. Harris did not, and I'm guessing she got her green card only as long as she was married to Mr. Harris. So there is no evidence she matriculated thru our immigration process and subsequent naturalization.
And where in the 'law' did you find that obtaining a green card confers US citizenship, because it seems to me you can't pass something on that you never had.
Again, there are only 2 kinds of US citizenship; natural born, and naturalized.
I never said that a green card confers citizenship. Does it place the holder under the jurisdiction of the US? Yes.
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.