Posted on 12/09/2024 8:16:19 AM PST by bitt
The propaganda press exploits the lack of legal clarity about the issue to malign Trump as willing to stomp on the Constitution.
NBC’s Kristen Welker asked President-elect Donald Trump on Sunday if he still planned to end birthright citizenship. Trump affirmed his plans. But the way Welker deliberately misrepresented the amendment reveals not only a glaring need for clarification from Congress or the Supreme Court about whether children born to illegal aliens are citizens but the dangers of a press who are willing to craft law by word of mouth.
“You promised to end birthright citizenship on day one,” Welker said. “Is that still your plan?”
“Yeah, absolutely,” Trump responded.
Welker responded: “The 14th Amendment, though, says that, quote: ‘All persons born in the United States are citizens.'” Welker then asked if Trump will use “executive action” to circumvent the Constitution.
But that’s not exactly what the 14th Amendment says — though it may be what Welker and her other fellow Democrat propagandists wish it said. The media’s insistence on interpreting the 14th Amendment as a blanket guarantee of birthright citizenship fuels widespread confusion — but it’s deliberate. Take for example, that Politico’s Mia McCarthy reported Trump would have to “go around the 14th Amendment” to end birthright citizenship. CNN’s Daniel Dale wrote that the 14th Amendment says “someone born in the U.S. is granted automatic citizenship even if their parents are not citizens.”
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
P
“and subject to the jurisdiction of.....” The 14th was intended to apply to freed former slaves in the US. NOT ILLEGALS here on baby drop vacations, extended stays, or just enter-and-drop a baby US citizen, etc.
If both your parents are citizens of another country, the baby born here isn’t really “subject to the jurisdiction of” this country in its full meaning.
Do it, let Democrats sue up to the USSC and let’s see what happens on the decision.
Jurisdiction is a two-way street. By illegally crossing into this country and remaining here they have made the declaration that they WILL NOT accept the jurisdiction of US Laws. They are still foreign nationals without visas, and invaders.
I HATE how those bastards warp and twist Amendments ratified after the CW to fit their modern-day visions. As you point out, the 14th was very specifically ratified to protect freed slaves, not baby-dumpers.
The progressives have gone to great lengths to PREVENT illegals from being subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
They have created so-called "sanctuary cities" with the express intention to deny federal jurisdiction and have proclaimed their authority to do so. At least one lower court judge permitted an illegal to use a non-public entrance to avoid federal jurisdiction.
The progressives have bellowed their opposition to "separating families" by holding illegal parents to account for violating immigration laws. Such separation is routine for U.S. citizens who violate the laws. Apparently, illegals and their children are not subject to the jurisdiction charged with enforcing such laws.
At this point, I believe the baby should have the same status as the mother. If she is here illegally, so is the baby. If she has some temporary status, that is what the baby has, etc. Only if the mother is or becomes a US citizen should the baby become a US citizen.
And I think one of the penalties for being here illegally should be never, ever being able to become a US citizen. All this talk of “a path to citizenship” should be thrown out the window.
Welker has all the leanings of a marxist. And her glaring eyes tell it all.
Trump should give a trolling Kamala answer, verbatim and inflections, one time with these airheads.
It would be the stuff of memes that grandpas would share with grandchildren over the years.
Wide eyed todlers, just brimming with awe and pride.
The progressives have gone to great lengths to PREVENT illegals from being subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
********************
Excellent points in yourpost.
If I'm driving a car in Britain I must adhere to traffic laws but that doesn't make me a British subject.
“In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.”
Then, as they have gone to ‘great lengths’ to remove them from ....jurisdiction of..... they (THEIR CHILDREN BORN HERE) aren’t afforded citizenship within the meaning of the 14th, IMO. :0)
Separation of families, e.g., parent from child, is ROUTINE in common LE situations where a parent gets hauled off to jail and there is a minor without other parent around who is shipped off to CPS.
Cray-Cray eyes
If I was DJT, I would always carry a copy of the US Constitution in my pocket and pull it out upon need. “Your question is inaccurate!” Throw the mud back!
Post 17- amen
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.