.

Trump wants to End Birth right Citizenship

GuvamintCheeseGuvamintCheese Member Posts: 38,932
edited August 2015 in Politics
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]
«1

Comments

  • chiefrchiefr Member Posts: 11,084 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    36 years ago, all of the R candidates as well as the establishment Rs and especially the conservatives went nuts attacking and condemning Reagan saying he was a liberal and frightened of Reagan because a few years back he was a democrat.
    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.
  • allen griggsallen griggs Member Posts: 33,009 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    That foreigner birth right has got to go! Ridiculous that an illegal can cross the border and her hatchling is a US citizen.
  • cranky2cranky2 Member Posts: 3,235 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is one place Trump and I find common ground. I've thought for years this needed to be changed.
  • milesmiles Member Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Passage of a new constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds "aye" vote in the House and Senate, plus the approval of the legislatures of three-quarters of the 50 states.

    That would be a hard row to hoe..[V]
  • ltcdotyltcdoty Member Posts: 3,900 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    My better half was raised an Air Force G.I brat. Her youngest sister was born at a hospital in Japan back in 1957. For years the other siblings would tease her that her parents had to have the " Made in Japan' stamp removed from her foot when they got back to the States.[:D]
  • Marc1301Marc1301 Member Posts: 31,821 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    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.
    "Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here." - William Shatner
  • us55840us55840 Member Posts: 31,589 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
    That foreigner birth right has got to go! Ridiculous that an illegal can cross the border and her hatchling is a US citizen.


    Exactly ... should have been done long ago!

    [^]
    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
  • Spider7115Spider7115 Member, Moderator Posts: 29,604 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
    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.

    thumbsup6.jpg?1384968217
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,943 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
    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.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • kannoneerkannoneer Member Posts: 2,561 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am with Donald on this one, 100%.
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 38,925
    edited November -1
    they would have all the world freely declared citizens and force the middle class to hold down 3 jobs and pay more taxes to support them
  • cranky2cranky2 Member Posts: 3,235 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    All he needs is a phone and a pen. All the one we have now has.
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,084 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There's another angle to this. For example ...

    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.
  • p3skykingp3skyking Member Posts: 25,750
    edited November -1
    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.
  • NeoBlackdogNeoBlackdog Member Posts: 12,561 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    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 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.
  • nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,366 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hmmm. Saw an interview with Scott Walker on Fox tonight, where he was asked his position on anchor babies. He refused to answer, saying we need to develop a new immigration policy, first.

    Neal
  • AzAfshinAzAfshin Member Posts: 3,117
    edited November -1
    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?
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,233 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    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.
    super! Idea!
  • pwilliepwillie Member Posts: 20,233 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    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)]
  • AzAfshinAzAfshin Member Posts: 3,117
    edited November -1
    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.
  • Sam06Sam06 Member Posts: 19,073 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    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.
    RLTW

  • p3skykingp3skyking Member Posts: 25,750
    edited November -1
    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.
  • p3skykingp3skyking Member Posts: 25,750
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by AzAfshin
    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.[}:)]
  • Sam06Sam06 Member Posts: 19,073 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
    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.
    RLTW

  • p3skykingp3skyking Member Posts: 25,750
    edited November -1
    Sam, a couple of months ago this came up about voting during Colonial times. You had to own property or be a substantial tax-paying citizen of the town to show you had a stake in the community/country.

    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'.
  • jltrentjltrent Member Posts: 8,878 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If he wants the job he will be the next President.
  • wpagewpage Member Posts: 10,191 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Pulled the Trump card on this issue.[:)]
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 38,925
    edited November -1
    i read where there is a real birthing vacation here so they can stream across , have the AMERICAN taxpayer pay the bill, declare the little darling a citizen , then the whole village tags along ...one big happy family...on our nickel
  • jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
    edited November -1
    Amend it to read that children born here with at least one parent who is a U.S. Citizen are automatically citizens, but children of foreign nationals are citizens of the parents' countries only. If the parents are here legally, the child may remain here legally until 18, so long as the parents status remains legal. At which point the child needs his/her own visa. SImple as that.

    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.
  • reload999reload999 Member Posts: 3,164 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree 100% quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
    That foreigner birth right has got to go! Ridiculous that an illegal can cross the border and her hatchling is a US citizen.
  • topdadtopdad Member Posts: 3,408
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by AzAfshin
    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.[:)]
  • nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,366 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Congress didn't need to change the 2nd Amendment to inflict GCA68 on us; they just DID it, & courts have upheld it.

    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
  • AzAfshinAzAfshin Member Posts: 3,117
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dennisnielsen
    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.
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 35,110 ******
    edited November -1
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,943 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Who was President in 1965, and what party controlled Congress??????


    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.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I personally do not see the 14th amendment as the problem.

    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.
  • gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,402
    edited November -1
    My wife came here legally & all three of our children were born before she became a citizen. What would you have their citizenship be?
  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 31,140 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gruntled
    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.
  • spasmcreekspasmcreek Member Posts: 38,925
    edited November -1
    and how many dozens of hospitals across the southwest went broke from all the free birthing
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Donald is not my first choice but I applaud his upfront attitude and bringing issues forward in a manner that cannot be ignored.

    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. "
Sign In or Register to comment.