Posted on 08/21/2019 10:23:03 AM PDT by Monrose72
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that his administration was seriously looking at ending the right of citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens and people who immigrated to the United States illegally. “We’re looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby - congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen. ... It’s frankly ridiculous,” Trump told reporters outside the White House. Trump has made cracking down on immigration a central plank of his presidency and re-election campaign, but many of the administration’s sweeping rule changes and executive orders have been stymied by the courts.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
It does. He's wrong.
And John Roberts, but that might be redundant.
It is “assumed” law, not “settled” law.
But Mr. Trump’s plan met with swift pushback from some even in his own party on Tuesday. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who is retiring, said in an interview that the president “obviously” cannot eviscerate birthright citizenship by executive order.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship.html
DO IT!!!!!!
It appears he thinks he can do it by Executive Order
***************
Yea that’s not gonna cut it. Was hoping he was looking into how to do it correctly (i.e. amendment)
Read the XIV amendment to the Constitution. To end birth right citizenship, you must alter the wording of this amendment. That means a formal amendment to change or override the XIV Amendment to the Constitution.
Not true. If you look at the 14th Amendment closely it does not grant birthright citizenship and its authors clearly stated so in congressional debat that is on the record and the Supreme Court has and must continue to give weight to those statements.
If President Trump changes policy and is sued over it there is a chance that the Supreme Court could decide in his favor.
No it is settled. It's the plain language of the text. Do you also think a president can redefine the 2nd amendment through an executive order?
Perhaps there is a way with SCOTUS.
But he would need another Judge. Roberts is a traitor
Section 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.
That's a bit of a sticky wicket.
I think that is what he is going for...get it before SCOTUS.
“He has no power to change this, other than asking Congress to propose a constitutional amendment.”
Look at you roll over, how cute.
Nope. SCOTUS could do it.
They were the ones that granted it.
There are lots more still in office.
Alexander, Graham, McSally, Murkowsky, Hoeven, Rubio, Tillis, Burr, Lankford, Gardner, Cornyn, Hyde-Smith, Collins, Sasse, Kennedy, Shelby, Ernst, Blunt, McConnell, Wicker, Portman, Isakson, Johnson, Toomey, Rounds, Thune, Gaines, Barasso and Enzi are all Bush League Republicans.
Re:32 - Agreed that the plain reading of the 14th Amendment seems “plain”.
F I N A L L Y!
Just overturn the dicta on one Supreme Court ruling.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says anybody born here is a automatic citizen.
Just as there is nothing about a "wall between church and state" and a bunch of other things they love to add in.
Illegals don't "reside" anywhere except their home countries.
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.