Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship
Reuters ^ | 08-21-19 | Jeff Mason

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 ...


TOPICS: Local News; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: bot; buildthefence; daca; dreamact; dreamers; electoralcollege; faithlesselectors; nationalpopularvote; npv
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last
To: Bull Snipe

“But an amendment to the Constitution is the only way around birth right citizenship.”

14th amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

Looks like it precludes what is commonly called “birthright
citizenship.”

Birthright citizenship is a term that has been hi-jacked to refer to people entering illegally and giving birth on American soil. The birth is due to an illegal act and not as a result of due process establishing jurisdiction.

I was entitled to birthright citizenship, for example, because my parents are citizens.

The idea that the writers of the 14th amendment ever dreamed that their words would be twisted to mean what is claimed now would make them roll over in their graves, especially since they ruled it out in commentary on the law they had written.

I think it was about 1927 before American Indians were given citizenship to the United States even though they had been born in the land area long before we were. The 14th amendment was adopted about 1865 (for former slaves).


81 posted on 08/21/2019 12:32:42 PM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Monrose72
Back before for the last election.

Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship


82 posted on 08/21/2019 12:39:28 PM PDT by Theoria (I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Ending the thought that for some woman who sneaks into the US just to give birth to their child, there is an amendment that automatically makes her child a citizen, guaranteeing her and the rest of her family to lifetime welfare benefits, thanks to a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, granting “citizenship,” by virtue of a birth, won’t be easy.

One or two or more Supreme Court judges who are true Constitutionalists, judges who love and revere the same, could make it happen!

Just as some of our leftist idiots, in black robes, found a right to kill the unborn (now including the recently born) in the Constitution to be interpreted as our “right to privacy,” should include a mother’s desire to murder her unborn baby, as her private decision, might also include a clear reading of that amendment, that for decades did NOT include uninvited illegal alien women, who sneak over either border or cross any ocean, just to have their baby does not grant that child all the rights and privileges of citizens is wrong!

I know I’m stepping out on a limb to presume that Chief Justice Roberts would honestly read all writings by those who crafted this amendment, a risky proposition I know. Who knows, even he might stand up for our Constitution and realize that the sole purpose of conferring citizenship of the offspring of the U.S. slaves, following the Emancipation Proclamation, immediately granting freedom but also citizenship, as were their children! These rights were intended for the babies or children of those slaves and not for others.

83 posted on 08/21/2019 1:40:01 PM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
14th §1 is the relevant text. Some say its plain text requires this, some point to various court, including Supreme Court, cases mandate that interpretation. However it’s been posted here often that the original intent of the 14th was not that and that the belief the plain text requires it is just the consequence of a century of progressive education brainwashing. One of the first American residents of my community was a rather famous homesteader who lost a notorious Supreme Court decision in spite of the very clear text of the then relevant laws, Dred Scott. So I understand that when Stare Decisis means Stare Stultus it should not stand!

I doubt an Executive order is the needed fix. 14th §5 clearly give Congress the power to craft implementing law here. Win us a Trump friendly Congress and DJT can push his case to them. He also can further improve the prospects for its judicial review.. At a minimum it would start the public opinion chipping away at the century old unchallenged assumption that de facto was de Jure and start building public support for an Amendment fix if the courts insist on that.

84 posted on 08/21/2019 1:48:45 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer (waiting for the tweets to hatch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Wish him all the luck. But an amendment to the Constitution is the only way around birth right citizenship.”””

I do NOT think an amendment is necessary.

The 14th Amendment has been bastardized with wrong interpretations for many years.

The 14th Amendment was meant to make children of slaves USA citizens. It was passed & ratified after the Civil War , in the 1800’s. It is NOT a new law. Look at the exact working & the events of the time in which it was passed and see what the 14th is meant to be doing.

It NEVER was meant for invaders to this country to whelp their kid on USA soil & grant that baby automatic citizenship.

It was wrong the first time it happened, and it has been even MORE wrong ever since.


85 posted on 08/21/2019 1:49:09 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Wish him all the luck. But an amendment to the Constitution is the only way around birth right citizenship.”””

I do NOT think an amendment is necessary.

The 14th Amendment has been bastardized with wrong interpretations for many years.

The 14th Amendment was meant to make children of slaves USA citizens. It was passed & ratified after the Civil War , in the 1800’s. It is NOT a new law. Look at the exact wording & the events of the time in which it was passed and see what the 14th is meant to be doing.

It NEVER was meant for invaders to this country to whelp their kid on USA soil & grant that baby automatic citizenship.

It was wrong the first time it happened, and it has been even MORE wrong ever since.


86 posted on 08/21/2019 1:50:12 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

This language was to make children of slaves USA citizens.

NOTHING MORE.

Certainly NOT to allow pregnant invaders to whelp their offspring on USA soil & be ranted automatic citizenship for the child.

Read the 14th in the times in which it was written & ratified.


87 posted on 08/21/2019 1:54:55 PM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

wrong. The XIV Amendment was passed to make citizens of about 4.2 million ex slaves. This was seen as the only realistic way around the Dred Scott decision. That SCOTUS decision stated that there was no way that a slave or an ex slave could become a citizen of the United States.

What it’s intent was in immaterial, the court looks at what is written. What is written seems to support birth right citizenship. Not my interpretation, the courts over the last 100 years or so.

The court should take a look at the issue of “jurisdiction of the United States”. That may be a way to nullify the birth right clause of the amendment.


88 posted on 08/21/2019 2:21:51 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Monrose72

This will make even more heads explode. Cleanup on aisle 13.


89 posted on 08/21/2019 2:27:47 PM PDT by McGruff (If you hate our Country, or if you are not happy here, you can leave!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monrose72

This is not the first time we’ve seen him threaten to do this. People get geeked up-Fired up-pumped up-then he doesn’t do it. Even if he did-it would be shot down by a federal judge in a minute-but I doubt seriously if this is anything more than a pep rally.


90 posted on 08/21/2019 2:37:31 PM PDT by NELSON111 (Congress: The Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog show. Theater for sheep. My politics determines my "hero")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Obama's occupation of the White House did that. But, take a breath, all. Thanks Monrose72.

91 posted on 08/21/2019 6:42:46 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ridesthemiles

No, it was to make the ex slaves citizens.


92 posted on 08/21/2019 6:44:11 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Monrose72

OMG - that would be wonderful... Oh please God - let this happen...


93 posted on 08/22/2019 8:51:56 AM PDT by GOPJ (Epstein provided white liberal 'elites' with children to rape.The white liberal press ignores that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

You are confusing criminal justice jurisdiction with the obligations between a citizen and the state.


94 posted on 08/22/2019 6:33:05 PM PDT by wildcard_redneck (Freeper formerly known as WMarshal.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: wildcard_redneck

I probably was. Thanks for setting me straight, WR.


95 posted on 08/23/2019 12:37:01 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson