Posted on 12/07/2024 8:26:54 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
“Birth tourism” is a crime against our country - and expensive. Time for Trump, Homan, and Vivek Ramaswamy to put an end to it.
BTTT
.....
All you need to know.
Quite possibly the most damaging president we've ever had.
There are dozens of “birthing centers” in Los Angeles county alone
Seems Congress has to fix the anchor baby problem as well as the immigration crisis.
It would require a revision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which requires 2/3rds of the states and Congress to ratify the revision.
The Chi-coms play the long game. If American citizenship holds, that provides rampant opportunities for future spying.
Skip birth tourism, and just get rid of birthright citizenship. Citizenship should based on parent’s citizenship at time of birth.
The Chicoms have been birthing babies in SF and other West Coast cities for decades to gain birthright citizenship. This may be news, but it’s not new.
The Chicoms could easily take over the US without ever firing a shot via the open borders and birth right citizenship avenue.
Got Mandarin?
This is coming out 8 years after Obama left office.
I bet the damage from meat-puppet Biden 8 years from now will be far, far worse.
Honestly, it will take more than the four years of Trump.
quotes:
And if you look at the legislative history, the debates on the floor of the Senate where the citizenship clause – remember when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed out of the House of Representatives, it did not have a citizenship clause. It was introduced by Senator Howard on the floor of the Senate. And he was, during the course of the discussions, asked precisely, “What do you mean by this citizenship?” And everybody understood what they were trying to do with the Fourteenth Amendment was constitutionalize the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, they thought, was on uncertain constitutional terms, whether Congress had exceeded its authority under the powers given to it under the Thirteenth Amendment. And even if it was constitutionally valid, they were concerned that a future Congress might repeal the 1866 Civil Rights Act. So they wanted to lock it into the Constitution. And that was the principle purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment.
And with respect to the Citizenship Clause, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, I think, is very clear. It said, “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Now, you might argue that “not subject to any foreign power” is more clear on the question of whether somebody born here to parents who are subject to foreign powers, who are still citizens of Ireland or Mexico or Japan or what have you, would clearly not be citizens under the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Maybe the change in language to the Fourteenth Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction,” was intended to broaden the grant of citizenship. If you look at the debates, though, you will see that the change had one purpose in mind. When it said “not subject to any foreign power,” the issue was whether children of Native Americans, “Indians” in their terminology, were automatically citizens.
Senator Lyman Trumbull was asked point blank, “Well, what do you mean? Doesn’t this mean that Indians living on the reservation are going to be covered by your new clause since they were, quote, ‘most clearly subject to our jurisdiction both civil and military?” Senator Lyman Trumbull, who is one of the key figures in the drafting and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded,
“What the phrase that we’re using means is that it’s complete jurisdiction, not owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard, who actually introduced the language of this Clause, contended that it should be construed to mean “full and complete jurisdiction,” the same extent that we have now under the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
The first executive decision on this reached the same conclusion. Attorney General Wiliams in 1873 takes up the issue on what it means, when dealing with an interpretation of the Expatriation Act that was addressed at the same time. He wrote: “The citizenship clause, the words are ‘jurisdiction’ in it must be understood to mean ‘absolute or complete jurisdiction.’ Aliens, among whom are persons born here but naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.”
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=lawreview
You're right on this - Trump and his team can do this, It'll be an early victory - a win for all of us.
Happens all the time. When I worked in W. Africa you saw women hiding the bump to get on a plan for the US all the time. Go live with someone in the US, drop the kid and claim citizenship.
Could be good or bad.
quotes from the discussion:
the powerful language of Wong Kim Ark is at the very end of this quote, “Every citizen subject of another country while domiciled here is within the allegiance”
[unverified by me]
the word “domiciled” meant you had to be lawfully a resident. Just somebody that was there unlawfully was not considered to be domiciled. You had to be there with permission with intent to stay permanently. That was all encapsulated in the word “domiciled.”
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=lawreview
Affluent Chinese want to give their children the capability of escaping Chinese communism.
Affluent Chinese are apparently not aware of the dangers of our leftists.
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.