Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

Audio at link...

Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship — and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”
...
“The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship … there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ‘consent’ and ‘sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this,” he continued.

At Levin’s request, Horowitz explained how an executive order issued by Trump ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would not be lawless because the order would be pursuant to law. It is not like Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty, which was an order contrary to law.

“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

Horowitz made the point that our modern concept of birthright citizenship came about not as the result of a court decision, not by an act of Congress, but by the executive branch’s lax enforcement of immigration law. Levin pointed out that if birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic creation, as the chief of the bureaucracy, President Trump has the right to correct years of extra-constitutional behavior by the executive branch.

“He’s not changing the Constitution by executive order. He’s not reinterpreting the Constitution by executive order. He’s getting the executive branch under control and saying, ‘This is what the 14th Amendment means,'” Levin said.
...
More: https://www.conservativereview.com/...f-illegal-immigrants-with-an-executive-order/
Click to expand...
 
UWDude said:
Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.
States have rights, to own slaves.
Not in America. Not anymore.
That is what I mean about the silly discussion of law.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.
Wrong. They aren't.
Not in America. Watch.
Click to expand...
There is so much wrong with what you said that it isn't worth derailing the thread to respond.
 
kahless said:
As part of the fear mongering CBS 2 in NY at 5pm used a selection of experts to trash Trump on it, including a really ethnic looking and sounding Jewish lawyer. The report followed coverage of the synagogue shooting and probably hoping they could subconsciously connect the two in the viewers minds.
Click to expand...

They have been doing that for decades. Segway infectors.
 
UWDude said:
Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.
Click to expand...

Um, no. Corporations are PERSONS. That is actually correct. If you know the etymology of "person", you would know that this is actually proper.

What is a "person"? "Person" derives from "persona" , from the Latin . A "persona" was the MASK worn by theater actors in the days prior to electrical sound amplification/broadcast systems. It consisted of a mask with what amounted to a small megaphone at the mouth for projecting the voice. It came to denote humans, but that is a different sense of the term. The LEGAL sense of "person" WRT corporations is not that they are human beings, but that they are a false face, indicative of their roles as practical legal conveniences such that they are then treated as extant entities for the various purposes that would become very cumbersome were these legal instruments not available to us.

I suppose it is partially understandable that people mistake this arrangement for something that it is not, but at the end of the day there is no excuse for adults to be so ignorant of the truth. This is actually a very important concept and one would think that intelligent and responsible adults of good character would take the time to learn about the truth of it. They don't. Rather, they move forward on their assumptions about what it all means, often using that false understanding as the pretext for all their bitching, moaning, and bellyaching about the Eville™ corporations. It is childish, boring as all hell, even more stupid, and dangerous as well.

I will add that there is no such thing as a bad or Eville™ corporation, but only the people who hide behind the veil of such legal instruments. Therefore, blaming "corporations" becomes trebly dangerous in practical terms because the wrong thing receives the ire of the bile-laden.

The depth of ignorance by the average man of basic and essential items of knowledge is so great as to leave some of us wondering how in hell this nation doesn't collapse in on itself in the manner of a black hole... or at least a neutron star.
 
osan said:
Um, no. Corporations are PERSONS. That is actually correct. If you know the etymology of "person", you would know that this is actually proper.

What is a "person"? "Person" derives from "persona" , from the Latin . A "persona" was the MASK worn by theater actors in the days prior to electrical sound amplification/broadcast systems. It consisted of a mask with what amounted to a small megaphone at the mouth for projecting the voice. It came to denote humans, but that is a different sense of the term. The LEGAL sense of "person" WRT corporations is not that they are human beings, but that they are a false face, indicative of their roles as practical legal conveniences such that they are then treated as extant entities for the various purposes that would become very cumbersome were these legal instruments not available to us.

I suppose it is partially understandable that people mistake this arrangement for something that it is not, but at the end of the day there is no excuse for adults to be so ignorant of the truth. This is actually a very important concept and one would think that intelligent and responsible adults of good character would take the time to learn about the truth of it. They don't. Rather, they move forward on their assumptions about what it all means, often using that false understanding as the pretext for all their bitching, moaning, and bellyaching about the Eville™ corporations. It is childish, boring as all hell, even more stupid, and dangerous as well.

I will add that there is no such thing as a bad or Eville™ corporation, but only the people who hide behind the veil of such legal instruments. Therefore, blaming "corporations" becomes trebly dangerous in practical terms because the wrong thing receives the ire of the bile-laden.

The depth of ignorance by the average man of basic and essential items of knowledge is so great as to leave some of us wondering how in hell this nation doesn't collapse in on itself in the manner of a black hole... or at least a neutron star.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the point of my statement is corporations are persons or whatever they think they are, until the law gets changed.
See, people, peoplehood, cannot be wiped out by a law.
But through law alone, corporations could be made to cease to exist, if one so chose.
Although they may seem a real entity, they are only real, until they aren't. Kind of like almost every treaty ever written.
 
 
 
TheCount said:
If they wanted something else, then they should have written something else.
Click to expand...
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and 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. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/
 
Swordsmyth said:
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v. Wilkins years later:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and 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. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09..._jurisdiction/
Click to expand...

 
Women should not be able to come to the US on a VISA and have a child and the be child deemed a citizen. My grand parents came to the US to escape Hitler. They still had to apply for asylum and be screened by the government. My mother was born in the USA but was not deemed citizenship until after her mother became a citizen although her father was a citizen. A child is considered to be the race or nationality of the mother.
My son's father was not a citizen of the USA but because I was a citizen my child was born a citizen. In a sense the child is considered to be more related to the mother like it or not. My grandchildren were born in the USA and because their mother applied to enter the USA with a green card under the jurisdiction of the usa and was married to a USA citizen they were deemed citizens. Does that clear anything up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Invisible Man
I
E
Trump executive order re birthright citizenship
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
Swordsmyth
Trump is backing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-GA) new bill that would EXCLUDE illegal immigrants from the census
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
485
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Netanyahu To Visit White House for 4th Time
Replies
9
Views
97
unknown
unknown
Snowball
Trump to attend Gulf summit during Saudi Arabia trip
Replies
17
Views
100
Snowball
Snowball
Back
Top