Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

I could be wrong, but I've heard that the birthright citizenship thing extends to children of diplomats as well who were born in the US, which is ridiculous.
 
By asking the Supreme Court to redefine or even once again sharply define citizenship,
Donald Trump is revisiting the turbulent era right after our Civil War that saw ole Andrew
Johnson such a household word, and all over the newspapers of the era. I keep on saying
that the Democrats will dearly want to impeach him, although Joe Biden & Nancy Pelosi do
feel this is a bad idea. The source of this discontent is to Bernie's left, but we must think
over how tempting political payback is to a partisan hack who hero worships the Clintons!
Keep in mind impeachment exists so that there is a redress for abuse of power. It is not
an exercise in frivolity. The quaint rhetoric of 1868 is about to get a Hollywood rewrite!!!
 
phill4paul said:
Oh my God the Progs are whipped into an absolute lather over this. This is the best Trump has come up with yet!
Click to expand...

And it's a major political loser for them. Even the normies can perform basic arithmetic and deduce that birthright citizenship is a raw deal for them.

Who do you think will be paying for all these hungry mouths? Look in the mirror. At some point, the democrats will be going over the proverbial falls as public resources dwindle. Just look at all the hospital closures nationwide and especially in immigrant heavy states like California.
 
Last edited:
specsaregood said:
I don't think it applies to people here temporarily either, non-residents. eg: student visas, tourism visas
Click to expand...

If a single parent is a citizen or a green card holder, under Trump's plan the child would be granted birthright citizenship. That has not stopped the news media from having a total meltdown over it tonight.

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.
 
I swear the way the Democrats vote (not talk, they NEVER admit this) is to flat out hand Voting Rights to Illegals who didnt even immigrate! If he pulls this off, next target Welfare. It removes two of many incentives to break our laws and replace our population with democratic voters, because that is ALL that matters to many at the top! Also keep in mind its not solely the Democrats, but many Republicans too if you look carefully at their voting history...

Our own Laws are used against us, to destroy and replace us.
 
Anti Globalist said:
I'd rather have this be done through a constitutional amendment than an EO.
Click to expand...
It was done by legislating from the bench so I don't see why an EO can't undo it, legislation or a constitutional amendment should follow so that the next president can't just undo it.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Interesting. Ron Paul supported repealing birthright citizenship, but I don’t recall the details of how he wanted to do it.

Best option would be a Constitutional Amendment. That’s a high hurdle, but worth pursuing.

It seems like the courts are usually involved in interpreting the law, and constantly changing interpretation by activist courts is a problem. When the court has a wrong interpretation of the intent, is it not up to lawmakers to clarify?

An executive order to change law is not constitutional at all.
Click to expand...
It isn't changing the law, it is enforcing it properly.
 
dannno said:
What other country in the world besides the United States where a person comes in and has a baby, is that baby essentially a citizen of the United States?
Click to expand...

A lot of other countries offer birthright citizenship but in the not-the-third-world countries, only the US and Canada. The United Kingdom removed unconditional citizenship by birth in the British Nationality Act of 1981, because people were flooding into their country.
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Interesting idea. The meaning of that language at the time it was written is key. Has the definition been changed by activist courts since it was first adopted? Constitutionally, how is that supposed to be corrected?

“Subject to the jurisdiction” is a double edged sword. Do non-citizens have the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Due process? No cruel and unusual punishment? IMHO, it should mean that anyone who is in the custody of US authorities is guaranteed those rights, with the exception of a war zone, where the Geneva Convention should apply.

With regard to illegal border crossing, there should be a process, even if that process consists of turning them around at the border if they are not citizens or have no valid visa.
Click to expand...

specsaregood said:
I don't see it that way since it is an interpretation. Is it not the executive branch that bestows citizenship officially on people? If so, then it would be in his purview to say, have the govt cease bestowing citizenship on children of illegals or nonresidents. Then those people can sue to try to get citizenship and have it adjudicated.
Click to expand...

Swordsmyth said:
It isn't changing the law, it is enforcing it properly.
Click to expand...

Per my key question highlighted above, Mark Levin was talking about this today. He claims that the interpretation was changed to what it is today in the 1960’s by the executive bureaucracy. If true, then it is no longer interpreted according to the original intent.

I will always be against legislating from the Executive or Judicial Branches. How to correct it when one of those non-legislative branches changes the law via “interpretation” it is the question. What is the Constitutional solution?

Issuing an executive order might send it to the courts, and in this case, it can be guaranteed that the left will take this to court, and the lower courts will rule against it. It might go to the Supreme Court. Is this the best route? Is this the only route?
 
Brian4Liberty said:
Per my key question highlighted above, Mark Levin was talking about this today. He claims that the interpretation was changed to what it is today in the 1960’s by the executive bureaucracy. If true, then it is no longer interpreted according to the original intent.

I will always be against legislating from the Executive or Judicial Branches. How to correct it when one of those non-legislative branches changes the law via “interpretation” it is the question. What is the Constitutional solution?

Issuing an executive order might send it to the courts, and in this case, it can be guaranteed that the left will take this to court, and the lower courts will rule against it. It might go to the Supreme Court. Is this the best route? Is this the only route?
Click to expand...
It will do until we can get legislation or a constitutional amendment.
 
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
641
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Netanyahu To Visit White House for 4th Time
2
Replies
20
Views
497
unknown
unknown
Snowball
Trump to attend Gulf summit during Saudi Arabia trip
Replies
17
Views
122
Snowball
Snowball
Back
Top