In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Trump wants to End Birth right Citizenship
GuvamintCheese
Member Posts: 38,932 ✭
Now he's gone and done it. I think its actually going to work for him. They would have to amend the 14th amendment, but its not a bad platform.
He is killing the repubs on this one, forcing them to take a stance![:D]
He is killing the repubs on this one, forcing them to take a stance![:D]
Comments
Democrat controlled media spent months trying to destroy Reagan as well. Criticized Reagan due to a divorce, past Union leader, and made it clear Reagan would NEVER get the nomination and if he did, Carter would win by a landslide.
The fact that establishment Rs, the socialists, and their slobbering sycophants in the media do not like Trump makes him attractive.
That would be a hard row to hoe..[V]
The 14th amendment was one of three adopted post Civil War. It's intent was to grant citizenship to the freed slaves,.....not enable foreigners to drop babies like animals on US soil.
The 14th amendment was one of three adopted post Civil War. It's intent was to grant citizenship to the freed slaves,.....not enable foreigners to drop babies like animals on US soil.
This is why an Amendment is not necessary, and also why accepting precedent as settled law is wrong in many cases. Yet another reason an Article 5 Convention would be helpful.
Brad Steele
Suppose an American family is visiting Korea, or Mexico or some other country - maybe Russia. And the pregnant "US All American God & Country" wife had their kid on the visit. How would they like it if Russia said "your kid is a Russian citizen". Sorry, no thanks. Who the hell are you to presume I want my kid to be a Russian citizen?
Why should we presume the parents of the kid born here want them to be a US citizen? I mean, we know why some do but my bet is some folks say "no thanks, I'm an Australian citizen" or some other worthwhile country. Just because a person is born here they get the US brand? Isn't that a touch presumptuous and imperialistic?
So let's look at it differently - the 14th Amendment imposes US citizenship on a person whether they like it or not, subjects them to US laws to a greater extent were they not citizens.
With the exception of the Post Office, which has a high number of veterans in it, it would clean out government, mostly the politicians who are seldom have any balls now.
I personally think it would be great to make people EARN their full citizenship a la Starship Troopers. Two years of service to the country for EVERYONE, rich or poor, whatever color.
With the exception of the Post Office, which has a high number of veterans in it, it would clean out government, mostly the politicians who are seldom have any balls now.
I can't say I totally disagree with that. A couple years of military service or 3 or 4 years of civil service in order to earn the right to vote. Heinlein was a pretty bright guy.
Neal
As for changing the law, how about we change it and make it retroactive? Where would each and every one of you end up at?
I personally think it would be great to make people EARN their full citizenship a la Starship Troopers. Two years of service to the country for EVERYONE, rich or poor, whatever color.
With the exception of the Post Office, which has a high number of veterans in it, it would clean out government, mostly the politicians who are seldom have any balls now.
super! Idea!
Actually a baby born in the US to foreign nationals gets to choose their citizenship at age 18, they are not forced to be American citizens.
As for changing the law, how about we change it and make it retroactive? Where would each and every one of you end up at?
I would be here! Where would you be?.....[:o)]
quote:Originally posted by AzAfshin
Actually a baby born in the US to foreign nationals gets to choose their citizenship at age 18, they are not forced to be American citizens.
As for changing the law, how about we change it and make it retroactive? Where would each and every one of you end up at?
I would be here! Where would you be?.....[:o)]
I legally emigrated here and earned my citizenship.
I personally think it would be great to make people EARN their full citizenship a la Starship Troopers. Two years of service to the country for EVERYONE, rich or poor, whatever color.
With the exception of the Post Office, which has a high number of veterans in it, it would clean out government, mostly the politicians who are seldom have any balls now.
I like that too but what would be the advantage of being a citizen? The right to vote? Being hired for a job?
Since 1900 there has been less than 70% voter turn out and since 1970 it has been less than 60%.
I was in Iraq in 2005 during the elections and voter turn out was 80%, that was with bombings and killings going on. They could not even drive a car on election day. The ROE used there if used here there would have been maybe 2% turn out.
I agree with Trump BYW.
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
I personally think it would be great to make people EARN their full citizenship a la Starship Troopers. Two years of service to the country for EVERYONE, rich or poor, whatever color.
With the exception of the Post Office, which has a high number of veterans in it, it would clean out government, mostly the politicians who are seldom have any balls now.
I like that too but what would be the advantage of being a citizen? The right to vote? Being hired for a job?
Since 1900 there has been less than 70% voter turn out and since 1970 it has been less than 60%.
I was in Iraq in 2005 during the elections and voter turn out was 80%, that was with bombings and killings going on. They could not even drive a car on election day. The ROE used there if used here there would have been maybe 2% turn out.
I agree with Trump BYW.
I would say the right to vote, the right to run for office, the right to own real estate, a gun, to sit on a jury, the right to run for public office or have a government job, the right to have a security clearance in private sector jobs, the right to collect welfare (not social security, that should be for anyone that works and has paid in). Maybe some things I haven't thought about.
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
quote:Originally posted by AzAfshin
Actually a baby born in the US to foreign nationals gets to choose their citizenship at age 18, they are not forced to be American citizens.
As for changing the law, how about we change it and make it retroactive? Where would each and every one of you end up at?
I would be here! Where would you be?.....[:o)]
I legally emigrated here and earned my citizenship.
If it was retroactive, Trump wouldn't be able to run for office.[}:)]
quote:Originally posted by Sam06
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
I personally think it would be great to make people EARN their full citizenship a la Starship Troopers. Two years of service to the country for EVERYONE, rich or poor, whatever color.
With the exception of the Post Office, which has a high number of veterans in it, it would clean out government, mostly the politicians who are seldom have any balls now.
I like that too but what would be the advantage of being a citizen? The right to vote? Being hired for a job?
Since 1900 there has been less than 70% voter turn out and since 1970 it has been less than 60%.
I was in Iraq in 2005 during the elections and voter turn out was 80%, that was with bombings and killings going on. They could not even drive a car on election day. The ROE used there if used here there would have been maybe 2% turn out.
I agree with Trump BYW.
I would say the right to vote, the right to run for office, the right to own real estate, a gun, to sit on a jury, the right to run for public office or have a government job, the right to have a security clearance in private sector jobs, the right to collect welfare (not social security, that should be for anyone that works and has paid in). Maybe some things I haven't thought about.
I understand what you are saying and about half agree with you but...............
What you are saying is you have to serve to have the constitution apply to you.
I think that is what the Revolutionary war was all about.
That would bring back a form of feudalism or a caste system.
I think a better plan would be as a taxpayer you are granted those rights. But again that is not really what the founding fathers wanted.
The problem with this country is the ignorance that is so wide spread and even hailed by the ignorant. I don't think the founders ever thought this country would be run and populated with self hating, Ignorant, liberals like it is today.
Sorry kind of off topic.
We'd just be reverting back to what the Founders had in mind. You're right though, it is a caste system.
Nevr'do'wells might as well just keep on truckin'.
No other developed nation has an anchor baby clause. Canada chucked theirs as they were being flooded with illegal Chinese immigrants who would fly in in their 8th month of pregnancy just to squat and drop in a Canadian airport, often quite literally.
That foreigner birth right has got to go! Ridiculous that an illegal can cross the border and her hatchling is a US citizen.
quote:Originally posted by pwillie
quote:Originally posted by AzAfshin
Actually a baby born in the US to foreign nationals gets to choose their citizenship at age 18, they are not forced to be American citizens.
As for changing the law, how about we change it and make it retroactive? Where would each and every one of you end up at?
I would be here! Where would you be?.....[:o)]
I legally emigrated here and earned my citizenship.
Then you my freind are not the problem. Welcome to your new home.[:)]
So, we don't need to change the 14th Amendment, Congress just needs to pass a law defining the citizenship requires more accurately.
I'm afraid that I have to join the "vote 'em all out" group; not a single member of Congress has the guts to introduce legislation that would stop anchor babies.
Neal
quote:Originally posted by AzAfshin
Actually a baby born in the US to foreign nationals gets to choose their citizenship at age 18, they are not forced to be American citizens.
As for changing the law, how about we change it and make it retroactive? Where would each and every one of you end up at?
How about YOU foot the bill and not us.
If not we all could give you the foot boot.[:)]
Unfortunately, since I came here legally, I am footing the bill. For myself, my family, and the illegal immigrants. The problem is not anchor babies, it's illegal immigration. The word is right there "ILLEGAL". If they are illegally here, then they should be sent back, with or without child.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
From the link:
'Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency.'
Also, and something I have been saying for years:
'The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.'
And contemporaneous quotes from Senators:
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
Birthright Citizenship is a relatively modern creation, and is not Constitutionally mandated.
Brad Steele
Amendment XIV (1866)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
One perspective I agree with is:
"So what was to be the premise behind America's first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States - that is to say - not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits."
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
Also NO place in the Constitution is immigration addressed. Only Naturalization. So let's not forget that ALL the amendments including the 10th have weight.
The problem is SCOTUS. The Supreme Committee Of The United States. Once it granted it's self extra Constitutional authority, Judicial Review, it ceased being the arbitrator of what is Constitutional.
Couple this with the power to only hear cases it chooses and in the narrow perspective of the objection at hand thus ignoring the rest of the law.
Once the American people accepted the premise of balance on the court it ceased being a court. What is the rational of balancing the court with Justices that believe the Constitution means what it says and those that don't.
But to get back on topic. He may be correct but I think it should also include allowing the States to enforce Federal laws, even the ones the FEDS don't want to enforce.
My wife came here legally & all three of our children were born before she became a citizen. What would you have their citizenship be?
US citizens. A US citizen father and a legal immigrant mother bearing children in the USA makes a US citizen child in my book.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2015/08/22/illegal-immigration-is-the-disease-and-trumps-plan-is-the-cure-n2042266
"End birthright citizenship: Contrary to what you've probably read this week, the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to illegal aliens and only started doing so in the 1980s because of a footnote slipped into a Supreme Court decision by Justice Brennan in 1982. In other words, this "right" supposedly given to foreigners who enter our country illegally by the 14th Amendment was lying undiscovered for 114 years and we still haven't had the whole court rule on the subject."
"Now, would Donald Trump or anyone else be able to round up and deport 11 to 20 million illegal aliens? No, but we don't catch every burglar either. However, whether you're talking about burglary or illegal immigration, having a clear cut penalty in place and enforcing it goes a long way toward reducing the number of people who are willing to break the law. The woman who has been here illegally for 15 years cheating on her taxes to get earned income tax credits she doesn't deserve, taking a job that could be held by an American citizen and collecting welfare is no more sympathetic than the burglar who has been robbing people's homes for 15 years and getting away with it. She might be a nice person if you get to know her, but the guy who stole your flat screen TV last week might also be fun to have a beer with at the local bar. Ultimately, she still broke the law, fully knowing what the penalty would be and guess what? The penalty is more than just. If you're just deported for coming here illegally, you got off pretty light, especially compared to places like Mexico where you can be put in jail for two years if you enter that nation illegally. "
"Contrary to what you may hear from some people, this is not a radical plan. If anything, it's basic common sense for anyone who agrees with the first three principles Trump said underlie his whole policy.
1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.
2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.-
3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
If enforcing our border, sticking to the laws on the books and making sure our immigration policies are good for the American people are now considered radicalism, it's hard to see how we're going to survive long-term as a nation. "
I see absolotely no reason why we would need a change in the 14th amendment to take care of something born from a criminal act. If we can take away 2nd amendment rights to those that commit a criminal act then why would we need to apply the 14th for those that are of criminal status.