Posted on 05/30/2023 10:56:48 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
The policy proposal, contained in one of his Agenda 47 videos his campaign released, was obtained exclusively by Breitbart News ahead of its public release.
“As part of my plan to secure the border, on day one of my new term in office I will sign an executive order making clear to federal agencies that under the correct interpretation of the law going forward the future children of illegal aliens will not receive automatic U.S. citizenship,” Trump says in the slightly more than three-minute-long video.
Trump argues that birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens serves as a “magnet” and an “incentive” for future prospective migrants to attempt to enter the country illegally.
“Joe Biden has launched an illegal foreign invasion of our country allowing a record number of illegal aliens to storm across our borders,” Trump says in the video. “From all over the world, they came. Under Biden’s current policies, even though these millions of illegal border crossers have entered the country unlawfully, all of their future children will become automatic U.S. citizens. Can you imagine? They’ll be eligible for welfare, taxpayer-funded healthcare, the right to vote, chain migration, and countless other government benefits, many of which will also profit the illegal alien parents. This policy is a reward for breaking the laws of the United States and is obviously a magnet helping draw the flood of illegals across our borders. They come by the millions and millions and millions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Foreign diplomats have diplomatic immunity. Immunity means placed outside jurisdiction. Only that removes them from the geography defined realities. French law determines what happens in their jurisdiction. Have to read up on their laws, however irrelevant that is.
It is because they are within US court jurisdiction that they can be deported. You could not deport an illegal in Argentina back to Mexico with a US court decree.
This is not even debatable. It’s the same as McCain born outside the US, but at an American military post.
Illegals are within the legal purview of American courts on US soil. The whole argument is silly. Now, what CAN be done is refuse tourist visas to pregnant women. That is not protected by the Constitution.
If Obama was born in Kenya instead of Hawaii, what’s your take on that.
You clearly have law degree.
What the 14th has beensaid to mean for past 125 years RE this is nit what its writers meant.
If you use this logic, then anyone setting foot on this soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Which means anybody here on vacation or a work trip or just driving thru can pop out a kid who gets automatic citizenship. Which is a horrible interpretation that needs to be ended. Instead, if someone is here on a work trip from Germany they should be considered to be under the jurisdiction of Germany.
“If you use this logic, then anyone setting foot on this soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.”
I believe that this is how the birth provision in 14th Amendment has been interpreted for some time now. I believe it would take a SCOTUS decision or a Constitutional amendment to change this.
I concur.
If he wanted to do this, Since it was by EO, nothing could stop it, except the usual Interference by the klansmen courts.
Except it did NOT mean everyone born in the US were citizens, because American Indians were given citizenship many years AFTER the 14th Amendment was passed.
The important part is the “under the jurisdiction thereof” and THAT is the crux of the 14th Amendment that no one wants to really try to understand.
Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause (”subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, “not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language “will not, of course, include foreigners.” ~ Matthew Spalding, Asst. Dean Hillsdale College
As a matter of fact, people claim that US v. Wong Kim Ark proves that children born to illegal alien children are given automatic birthright citizenship, but Wong’s parents were here LEGALLY! They were permanent residents.
Birthright citizenship is predicated on the feudal system where all persons born on the King’s land were automatic subjects of that King...it was more of an OWNERSHIP designation; kind of like you have a “right” to be subjugated by the King!
However, by forcing America to accept and ultimately PAY FOR every person that happens to slip over a line in the middle of the night and drop out a kid is completely antithetical to America’s concept of equal rights and consent of the governed. We have a legal and moral right to decide who we allow to become American citizens - PERIOD!
You are clearly one of those haughty lawyers who thinks is so clever using Parseltongue to decipher the meaning of words.
My response is: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” Humpty Dumpty.
The leftwing courts have bastardized the common meaning of words to fit their own twisted pretzel logic rulings.
If anyone born in the USA was supposed to receive automatic citizenship then they would have said so WITHOUT including the phrase “jurisdiction”. Simple as that. But of course with liberals, nothing is simple.
Over and out.
Except it did NOT mean everyone born in the US were citizens, because American Indians were given citizenship many years AFTER the 14th Amendment was passed.
None of this is to say that birthright citizenship is right or proper or even mandated by the intent of the writers of the 14th. But it is how that passage has been interpreted. Congress’s passage of a law ending it would pretty much force a SCOTUS decision on the issue, but I think that would be a tough bill to get passed.
“You are clearly one of those haughty lawyers who thinks is so clever using Parseltongue to decipher the meaning of words.”
Nope, not a lawyer, just someone who insists that if you want to use a different meaning for a word that has an established meaning, you should at least provide some evidence for that meaning, rather than “because I said so”.
“The leftwing courts have bastardized the common meaning of words to fit their own twisted pretzel logic rulings.”
I see, so you’re just following in their hallowed tradition then?
so they are free to break the laws in the states?
nonsense. they are clearly subject to the jurisdiction
I agree, it would be nearly impossible for Congress to get a law passed so that it could get to SCOTUS for a ruling.
But, you know the easier, quicker way for it to get to SCOTUS for a ruling...an Executive Order!
GAME! SET! MATCH! Trump for the win!
Yep he could have done it on his first day.
“And plus it is unlikely to happen.”
So, what sense does it make for Trump to make lame promises like this one that are unlikely to happen, but guaranteed to rile up the left and motivate the Independents to vote Democrat?
“And yet, we had Indians who were arrested, imprisoned, and even executed by the United States for crimes committed within the United States during this timeframe”
To give my dad credit he (and his uncle) had the opinion 40 years ago the Bench would prove to be the undoing of our republic. They are only supposed to rule but activist Judges are taking more of a proactive stance to change.
Love your moniker by the way. I’m if the firm opinion McCarthy is the greatest and most slandered American man of the 20th century.
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.