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 planning Ex order on birthright citizenship
Rack Ops
Member Posts: 18,596 ✭✭✭
Announced it during an interview with HBO. No more "anchor babies"
Of course it will be tied up in the courts for years....but it's going to be fun watching lib heads explode in the interim.
Of course it will be tied up in the courts for years....but it's going to be fun watching lib heads explode in the interim.
Comments
I really do not like Donald Trump.
I really, really like President Trump.
Keep it up, Mr. President.
Well I hope it does go to court and I in a way I hope he gets defeated... If it gets defeated because it goes against the Constitution, that leaves the Second Amendment protected... If the president United States can't defy Constitution, how can anybody else defy the Constitution over the second amendment by taking away our rights to own firearms of any type.... Including fully automatic if we choose to... This would undo do every gun law on the books. Including having tax stamps for suppressors and fully automatic firearms...
Which would be a good thing[^][^][^]
But we would have to find a different way to deal with our illegal alien problem
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html
I guess I'll say it again.
I really do not like Donald Trump.
I really, really like President Trump.
Keep it up, Mr. President.
+1
The 14th Amendment was specifically passed to grant full citizenship to freed slaves following the war between the states, and has been incorrectly used to grant citizenship to anyone born within our borders. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means legally within our borders. If this Amendment is to include the children of illegal residents, the phrase has no meaning at all.
Comparisons to the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment are grammatically ignorant, as this phrase specifically modifies the preceding 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States'. Now is the perfect time to have a legitimate challenge to the mis-use of the the 14th Amendment. With Gorsuch, Roberts, and Alito on the bench, we have men who can dissect and clarify the wording and who are not ideologically stained as are Thomas, Ginsburg and the two lightweight Obama appointees.
Frankly, I think Kennedy would have also been valuable in this decision, as any decision by Kavanaugh, will be discounted by the left, regardless of how well or logically it is presented.
In a just world, there is not a legitimate claim to the precedent that has been set. We are not, however, living in a just world anymore.
Brad Steele
I'm a long way from being a legal scholar- but I think this may fly. I also think that the US is the only place in the world that has granted citizenship to a child born to a mother that is here unlawfully.
The 4.5 million anchor babies estimate exceeds the four million American children born every year. In the next decade, the CBO estimates that there will be at least another 600,000 anchor babies born in the U.S., which would put the anchor baby population on track to exceed annual American births ? should the U.S. birth rate not increase ? by more than one million anchor babies.
The illegal aliens will surpass U.S. citizens pretty quickly, first time in the History of the world a country paid to be invaded and taken over.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/12/28/anchor-baby-population-in-u-s-exceeds-one-year-of-american-births/
Address these other issues and the right of birth issue really doesn't amount to much.
I, as well as most of you, were very blessed to be born here. A baby has no control over where it is born. We, by accident of birth, are fortunate to be born here in the US. No doubt many of us are descended from ancestors that were born to none citizen parents.
If we keep illegal mothers out of the country this born a citizen issue takes care of itself. Put in a good system and the very few that get around it really won't make a difference.
Unless this is a move for leverage in a play for tougher illegal immigration control it isn't worth the battle at this time. There are more harmful issues to address
Announced it during an interview with HBO. No more "anchor babies"
Of course it will be tied up in the courts for years....but it's going to be fun watching lib heads explode in the interim.
[^][:D][^]
--- illegally revise the ACA
--- illegally cancel sanctions on Iran
--- illegally change immigration law to permit entry by illegals
Neal
Genius
should have been NO MORE anchors 50 years ago..
The NWO assured that was allowed and dual citizenship for all progressives types for opening up the floodgates of Foreign migration like boat people from Cuba and Mexico and millions of Vietnamese after losing the War of Northern Aggression over there.
The whites stop having offspring to go on vacation and buy second homes with fancy automobiles.[:o)]
serf
I see no reason to reward illegals who have broken our laws. To withhold citizenship from those whom are born here under illegal circumstance to me is reasonable, and should be done.
I'm still waiting for the wall that was promised.
He can't do it alone, and he's dealing with anti Trump Republicrats along with Progressives...
Yep and the next Demoncrat President is going to say,, "well armed Militia" means Military only and do his own order against civilians owning firearms,,very very bad precedent to start
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof' has meaning that has been twisted and/or ignored by those that would suggest birthright citizenship is covered by the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was specifically passed to grant full citizenship to freed slaves following the war between the states, and has been incorrectly used to grant citizenship to anyone born within our borders. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means legally within our borders. If this Amendment is to include the children of illegal residents, the phrase has no meaning at all.
Comparisons to the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment are grammatically ignorant, as this phrase specifically modifies the preceding 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States'. Now is the perfect time to have a legitimate challenge to the mis-use of the the 14th Amendment. With Gorsuch, Roberts, and Alito on the bench, we have men who can dissect and clarify the wording and who are not ideologically stained as are Thomas, Ginsburg and the two lightweight Obama appointees.
Frankly, I think Kennedy would have also been valuable in this decision, as any decision by Kavanaugh, will be discounted by the left, regardless of how well or logically it is presented.
In a just world, there is not a legitimate claim to the precedent that has been set. We are not, however, living in a just world anymore.
What do you base such claims upon ?
Is it a result of your own study, or is somebody telling you this ?
Your comments are remarkable not just in the quality of error, but also to the degree, as well.
?Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 15 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 6
and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored
the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth. (7)
Based on the first sentence of section 1, (8) the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were
ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. (9)
The requirement that a person be ?subject to the jurisdiction thereof,? however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, (10) or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. (11)
In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas
has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents. (12)
Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States. (13)
(5) Cong Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768?69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the lan-
guage said: ?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.? Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282?86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).
(6) ?That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right . . . .?
Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.
(7) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (189
(8) the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship
(9) The requirement that a person be ?subject to the jurisdiction
thereof,? however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,
(10) or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.
(11) In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas
has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by
the citizenship of the parents.
(12) Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.
(13) Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D. La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment by state legislation.?
https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-15.pdf
Excerpts from pp.1840-1841
Here's what the AUTHOR of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob Howard said it meant:
"[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, 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 person."
That is a BAD ROAD to go down,,If one President can do an order to change the Constitution ,,so can the next,,It may be birthright this time but the next Demorat it will be the 2nd Amendment and guns
He's not changing anything, he is putting us back on the path that the original framers of the 14th Amendment meant for us to be on.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof' has meaning that has been twisted and/or ignored by those that would suggest birthright citizenship is covered by the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was specifically passed to grant full citizenship to freed slaves following the war between the states, and has been incorrectly used to grant citizenship to anyone born within our borders. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means legally within our borders. If this Amendment is to include the children of illegal residents, the phrase has no meaning at all.
Comparisons to the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment are grammatically ignorant, as this phrase specifically modifies the preceding 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States'. Now is the perfect time to have a legitimate challenge to the mis-use of the the 14th Amendment. With Gorsuch, Roberts, and Alito on the bench, we have men who can dissect and clarify the wording and who are not ideologically stained as are Thomas, Ginsburg and the two lightweight Obama appointees.
Frankly, I think Kennedy would have also been valuable in this decision, as any decision by Kavanaugh, will be discounted by the left, regardless of how well or logically it is presented.
In a just world, there is not a legitimate claim to the precedent that has been set. We are not, however, living in a just world anymore.
What do you base such claims upon ?
Is it a result of your own study, or is somebody telling you this ?
Your comments are remarkable not just in the quality of error, but also to the degree, as well.
?Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 15 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 6
and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored
the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth. (7)
Based on the first sentence of section 1, (8) the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were
ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. (9)
The requirement that a person be ?subject to the jurisdiction thereof,? however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, (10) or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. (11)
In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas
has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents. (12)
Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States. (13)
(5) Cong Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768?69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the lan-
guage said: ?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.? Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282?86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).
(6) ?That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right . . . .?
Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.
(7) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (189
(8) the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship
(9) The requirement that a person be ?subject to the jurisdiction
thereof,? however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,
(10) or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.
(11) In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas
has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by
the citizenship of the parents.
(12) Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.
(13) Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D. La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment by state legislation.?
https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-15.pdf
Excerpts from pp.1840-1841
We can quibble about children of parents who are within our borders legally. We can also be adult enough to understand that precedent while used in the decision making process, can be wrong.
There is no reasonable reading of the 14th Amendment, however, that grants birthright citizenship for those who are here illegally.
Unless of course, you choose to willfully ignore the wording of the Amendment.
It was obviously designed to grant citizen ship to freed slaves and their children. Twisting the meaning does not change that fact, nor should we continue upon a path that accepts errant decisions of the past.
Brad Steele
Regardless of whether I believe the Ammendment has been properly interpreted via the courts and Congress (It hasn't, IMO) I don't see how the Chief Executive has the power to overturn it.
The good news is that Congressional leaders have indicated they will take the issue up. A clear reading of the text, coupled with the will of the Legislature will put us in a much stronger position.
The POS are everywhere stirring up the loonies. Shills bait people up hoping one of their enemy will act out.
They are master baiters of the left [:D]
While the amendment came at a time and purpose directly related to slavery, the amendment was crafted, as the author stated, in a manner that addressed several different categories of persons and clarified the national position, keeping it in correspondence with both the natural law and common law fabric of our legal system.
It cannot be properly overturned by an executive order.
?Therefore, let the king render back to the Law what the Law gives him, namely, dominion and power; for there is no king where will, and not Law, wield dominion.? Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (Woodbine?s ed. 1915)
100% agree.
The question, however, is this the overturning of anything, or simply a clarification made by the branch of government charged with enforcement?
Absent a specific law in our Federal code (I didn't find one after an admittedly brief, 10 minute search) an executive order clarifying the position of law enforcement is within the power of the President.
This order will be challenged, and should reach SCOTUS whereby we may, provided Roberts grows a pair and insists upon a meaningful decision, finally have a specific SCOTUS decision related to the birthright citizenship of people born within our borders to parent(s) that are here illegally.
This order, if he actually signs it, is no doubt an electioneering stunt, but it addresses a significant issue. It is an issue that Congress has not and will not address, though the same argument can and would be made had Congress passed a law that stated the same thing. There will be a circuit court judge that stays the order, and if anything other than an electioneering stunt, Sessions will appeal, ensuring that SCOTUS will have the opportunity to make a determination.
This order, if it occurs, overturns nothing other than our current practice of taking the road of least resistance when it comes to anchor babies. It provides a vehicle through which the country can positively define the status of these children via a SCOTUS decision.
Brad Steele
-Guard Borders
-Barriers
Troops when required.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof' has meaning that has been twisted and/or ignored by those that would suggest birthright citizenship is covered by the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment was specifically passed to grant full citizenship to freed slaves following the war between the states, and has been incorrectly used to grant citizenship to anyone born within our borders. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means legally within our borders. If this Amendment is to include the children of illegal residents, the phrase has no meaning at all.
Comparisons to the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment are grammatically ignorant, as this phrase specifically modifies the preceding 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States'. Now is the perfect time to have a legitimate challenge to the mis-use of the the 14th Amendment. With Gorsuch, Roberts, and Alito on the bench, we have men who can dissect and clarify the wording and who are not ideologically stained as are Thomas, Ginsburg and the two lightweight Obama appointees.
Frankly, I think Kennedy would have also been valuable in this decision, as any decision by Kavanaugh, will be discounted by the left, regardless of how well or logically it is presented.
In a just world, there is not a legitimate claim to the precedent that has been set. We are not, however, living in a just world anymore.
What do you base such claims upon ?
Is it a result of your own study, or is somebody telling you this ?
Your comments are remarkable not just in the quality of error, but also to the degree, as well.
?Congress subsequently repudiated this concept of citizenship, first in section 15 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 6
and then in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, Congress set aside the Dred Scott holding, and restored
the traditional precepts of citizenship by birth. (7)
Based on the first sentence of section 1, (8) the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were
ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. (9)
The requirement that a person be ?subject to the jurisdiction thereof,? however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, (10) or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. (11)
In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas
has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by the citizenship of the parents. (12)
Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States. (13)
(5) Cong Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768?69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the lan-
guage said: ?This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.? Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282?86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).
(6) ?That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right . . . .?
Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.
(7) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (189
(8) the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship
(9) The requirement that a person be ?subject to the jurisdiction
thereof,? however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,
(10) or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.
(11) In addition, the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas
has generally been held by the lower courts to be determined by
the citizenship of the parents.
(12) Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States.
(13) Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D. La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment by state legislation.?
https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-15.pdf
Excerpts from pp.1840-1841
Here's what the AUTHOR of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob Howard said it meant:
"[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, 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 person."
This is important to note. It's not circular reasoning as some here have erroneously supposed. 11b6r correctly noted the poisoned tree legal concept.
Unfortunately, I don't share Don's hope that this will be properly sorted out, even with the good seed sown into the SCOTUS recently. More than likely, there will be no bright line that can be drawn from the decision, the waters will remain muddy and both sides will claim victory. That is how every SCOTUS decision has rained down from above since I have been alive.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I personally believe that it only applies to those LEGALLY born within the United States. YVMD.
In any case, I agree with what others have posted here. We need to keep these ILLEGALS from entering our Borders. We can not afford unmitigated and unregulated immigration.
According to this article, the headline says "Trump claims he can defy the Constitution"
Well I hope it does go to court and I in a way I hope he gets defeated... If it gets defeated because it goes against the Constitution, that leaves the Second Amendment protected... If the president United States can't defy Constitution, how can anybody else defy the Constitution over the second amendment by taking away our rights to own firearms of any type.... Including fully automatic if we choose to... This would undo do every gun law on the books. Including having tax stamps for suppressors and fully automatic firearms...
Which would be a good thing[^][^][^]
But we would have to find a different way to deal with our illegal alien problem
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html
You are mistaken; the amendment was for ex-slaves and their children plus legal immigrants to the USA. It was never intended to allow anchor babies and the resultant invasion of every family member under the sun.
A little research shows the intent; SCOTUS will sort it out and if they follow the ORIGINAL INTENT doctrine the ending of anchor babies will be ruled Constitutional.
This is important to note. It's not circular reasoning as some here have erroneously supposed. 11b6r correctly noted the poisoned tree legal concept.
Unfortunately, I don't share Don's hope that this will be properly sorted out, even with the good seed sown into the SCOTUS recently. More than likely, there will be no bright line that can be drawn from the decision, the waters will remain muddy and both sides will claim victory. That is how every SCOTUS decision has rained down from above since I have been alive.
I am not optimistic about what I see to be a proper sorting to occur, Mr. P. Two things have to happen.
The first is, as stated earlier that Roberts will have to insist upon a clear and specific decision.
The second would be that the decision is the one I believe to be correct.
The first is unlikely given what we have seen to date.
The second is a toss up at best.
Brad Steele