Posted on 10/30/2018 2:48:25 AM PDT by be-baw
As someone who was involved in issuing visas and passports for 28 years, I understand the process both professionally and personally. You need to get better informed on the issue.
I have been working on immigration issues for over ten years as part of a grassroots immigration group that lobbies on the Hill. We have supported ending birthright citizenship and various bill authored by Steve King and others. Birthright citizenship is still the law of the land. It must be changed.
I’ve never entered Germany legally as a visitor or refugee - do I currently have all the benefits of German citizenship? Would I if I snuck into the country and started living under a bridge?
“Birthright citizenship is still the law of the land”
Never mind.
LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE !!!!
Thank you President TRUMP !!!!!
As explained to me and frequently brought up here, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, ONLY applies to foreign diplomats. Diplomats have immunity to our laws, every other living creature is subject to our law, can be arrested, tried and jailed or sent back to where they came from.
This seems to make sense to me.
“Sure would be nice to have this mess cleared up once and for all. i.e., is Ted Cruz eligible to become President? Are my daughters?”
It is clear. No and no.
Natural born Citizen—born to U.S. citizen parent(S) on U.S. soil.
Is a visitor to the USA “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA?
I love this guy!
A ton of benefits to being EU citizens but only if the EU citizen lives in Europe and likes to travel freely between member states. - I think that’s about it. LOL
Also, 8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
This law has been the basis for the issuance of passports as well as granting benefits and entitlements to anyone born on USA soil. You may claim that this was never the intent of the 14th Amendment, but the fact remains that until the law is changed, we will continue to grant citizenship based on jus solis. The Courts will eventually make that determination. Trump's possible Executive Order will force the Courts to make that determination. Depending on the outcome, we will learn whether a Constitutional amendment is needed or not. Or will an EO or law passed by Congress be sufficient.
The Wall, if built, had them scared.
You see if you cannot get to US territory you cannot have an anchor baby.
BUT, they were already cooking up a scheme...since the wall cannot be placed EXACTLY on top of the border since it would exist in both Mexico and the US they were drawing up plans to put tiny,narrow birth clinics against the wall to claim the baby WAS born on US soil.
Is there no indignity we will not be forced to suffer!?
The 14th Amendment “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, means a person has to have a true and faithful allegiance to the US, and only the US. In other words a citizen.
Therefore, if an illegal(non-citizen) comes here and has a baby, the baby does not become a US citizen, but a citizen of the Mother’s home country, since the parent is still “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of their home country, and not of the United States.
Needs to be done, but there will be a lawsuit within seconds.
>>>They are entitled to all the benefits of citizenship, including US passports. This has been the practice for over 100 years.<<<<
Not really, paraphrased and quoted from RedMen:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the only scotus case that has been deemed applicable. Ark was born to legal permanent residents in the USA. The Court ruled that birthright citizenship extended to all persons born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of their parents excepting children born of diplomats and children of aliens born in territories occupied by foreign armies.
“The decision is silent with respect to children born to aliens here on temporary visa and to aliens who are here illegally. Indeed, while the decision can be viewed as covering everybody born here except for two exceptions, it is clear that it is assumed that the person born here is body politic of the country, subject to the same rights and responsibilities of citizens, being protected by and owing allegiance to the state. Children of parents who are here illegally or who are here only for the short time that their parents are here, cannot be presumed to be part of the body politic.”
“It wasn’t until the 1960s that illegal immigration and anchor babies became an issue in this country.... This is truly a novel issue and it would be good for the Supreme Court to have an actual case so the controversy can be resolved.”
I hope he does it. The court should be forced to decide what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Illegals would not purchase fake documents if they thought they were subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Here’s my President. If he accomplishes this it will be the single greatest accomplishment of his Presidency.
You’re still not getting it at all. There is no law granting citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. Nor to legal foreign nationals for that matter.
I don’t care if there’s been a ‘consensus’ of what the law may mean. Some subjective interpretation. It doesn’t work that way and it never should. This sh!t was conjured out of thin air.
It’s been a complete lawless free for all for 30 some odd years. Someone needs to go to prison for this. Better yet, someone needs to hang from a lamppost.
“If you truly want to understand birthright citizenship”
I obviously understand it a lot better than you do. You’ve had these same moronic talking points for years
will this be like football rules - did they break the plane? one toe or bit of body over the line?
I don’t think it would stick. That said, I hope it causes a stutter step for those who are headed north. Maybe that was part of the plan?
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.