Trump to end birthright citizenship by executive order?

[vacuum]

http://magaimg.net/img/6lvm.jpg

[Neuro]

It is an absurd rule to allow anyone who is born in a country to become its citizen especially if the parents are not citizens, and only went to the US to give birth to a baby with American citizenship. Several of my patients in Turkey has done this. From their point of view I can’t say I disagree with their decision. However these are not exactly anchor babies, as after the birth they return to their lives in Turkey. Also it would be a difference if someone is a long term legal resident.

[ziero0]

http://www.boundarystones.org/

http://www.boundarystones.org/images/NE1.jpg

This stone was accidentally bulldozed in 1952. A replacement stone was fabricated in 2015 but not yet placed.

The stone deliminates the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Now what has this to do with birthright citizenship? "Subject to the jurisdiction" ends at the stone.

Things happen in the United States in a de facto manner rather than a de jure one. Look at the equal rights amendment. Never passed but certainly implemented. Might not be a bad idea but they give us a 100 year preview of what the world will look like with it before it actually becomes law.

[steyr_m]

I dunno [well, I do; but that's a different conversation] why they're making a big deal of this on the MSM. All they have to do is read the Amendment and the conversation about it in that era to know that the EO itself isn't required. Just follow the amendment itself.....

[osoab]

Trump's throwing the narrative in a different direction to get some play with the invading hordes. Works up supporters right at election time.

Pure politics. 42D chess is it?

[Cebu_4_2]

Trump's throwing the narrative in a different direction to get some play with the invading hordes. Works up supporters right at election time.

Pure politics. 42D chess is it?

Absolutely and I am cutting work to vote.

[Neuro]

42D chess is it?
More like 6 pointed star underwater chess...

[End Times]

Birthright citizenship cannot be ended by executive order. It will require the Supreme Sanhedrin to declare anchor babies not "subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States) thereof," as was the intent of the framers of Amendment Fourteen.

Will they? Will they proscribe a key weapon in bringing down the United States, the latter being one of the last obstacles to overt world government?

[cheka.]

the words of the 14th have been twisted to mean things it doesn't say nor intended to say. it does NOT say born here to illegals = citizen

[cheka.]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/10/30/birthright-citizenship-a-fundamental-misunderstanding-of-the-14th-amendment/

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

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.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

[ziero0]

Birthright citizenship cannot be ended by executive order. It will require the Supreme Sanhedrin to declare anchor babies not "subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States) thereof," as was the intent of the framers of Amendment Fourteen.

The 14th amendment terminated the existing federal government. That includes the judicial branch of it as well. As a tidbit from history to reinforce this observation, the 14th amendment denies the debt of any insurgent government (this would be the new one) and behold the new government also denies the debt of the original one. Ten years after the 14th amendment was passed they stopped paying the federal debt that funded the (un)civil war and left the remnant valued at $346,681,016 which remains to this day, about $1 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.

Now if you proclaim you are a U.S. citizen then you are stating you are holding an office of public trust. Is the office you hold executive, legislative or judicial? As long as you are proclaiming citizenship you might as well seize the highest office in the judicial branch which would be Article III. Then you get to decide what is constitutional and what is not.