Quantcast
Trump Plans to Challenge the Constitutional Definition of Birthright Citizenship

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Plans to Challenge the Constitutional Definition of Birthright Citizenship

LiquorandGunFun said:
it was to make the then slaves American citizens, it was never meant to naturalize illegals, as they are not citizens and therefor are not under the jurisdiction of the US but the country they came in illegally from. Even native americans did not qualify as they were under tribal jurisdiction.

i also find it funny how now the left is concerned about the constitution all of a sudden.

There really is no need to create a straw man argument.  The point of contention here doesn't seem to be about changing the Constitution, it's about overriding the Constitution with an Executive Order.  That's obviously a much different story even if you try to cast it as something else.



Around the Network

The Supreme Court has never once in American history issued a ruling on birthright citizenship.

Let's see what the Supreme Court actually rules on this issue. It's long past due.



Lol I don't think the 14th amendment was meant to apply to the children of those who come in illegally. Also, I don't think Trump can change the constitution with a swipe of his pen. 



Lol, I bet conservatives would hop on board if Trump did actually try to do this.



Machiavellian said:
LiquorandGunFun said:
it was to make the then slaves American citizens, it was never meant to naturalize illegals, as they are not citizens and therefor are not under the jurisdiction of the US but the country they came in illegally from. Even native americans did not qualify as they were under tribal jurisdiction.

i also find it funny how now the left is concerned about the constitution all of a sudden.

What are the examples where the left or even the Dems has looked for the executive office to make changes with an executive order.  It's one thing to want change, its another to allow the president to change it without due process from the other branches and the states.

obviously it will be a court issue, if Trump decides to do so. but im glad someone has the balls to speak up about how stupid it is that its allowed.

as far as king barack, since you brought it up.

there are links,  they worked for me, if they dont work google it, im not doing all the homework for you. though i wouldnt be surprised if you were ok with them, doesnt make them constitutional. The reason why Trump was able to basically roll back everything obama did was executive action can be undone as easily as it was signed, it needs to go through congress to not be basically undone so easily. too bad his ideas were bullshit.


 

Around the Network

Trump claims, gWefre the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits.h

No surprise, that's a complete lie. Over 30 countries offer the same type of citizenship.



Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

Could be argued that is not very Patriotic though, right?
He is literally undermining a founding pillar of the US, wouln't he thus loose a few votes from the conservative side?

Hard to say, I think republican politicians will go against Trump on this. But I think a lot of republican and independent voters would actually support it.

Frankly, I could support this decision just because its being exploited and encourages people to come over illegally. We are also one of few (if any other?) countries doing it. Doesn't mean I want to end all immigration by any means, but this situation and incentive to come illegally is a mess.

I am all for strict border control. It just makes sense.
Allowing a free-flow of migrants can place unnecessary strain on limited resources.



LiquorandGunFun said:
it was to make the then slaves American citizens, it was never meant to naturalize illegals, as they are not citizens and therefor are not under the jurisdiction of the US but the country they came in illegally from. Even native americans did not qualify as they were under tribal jurisdiction.

i also find it funny how now the left is concerned about the constitution all of a sudden.

The ruling on native Americans was about people being born on tribal land which was not govern by the USA.  It also did not apply to foreign diplomats because they had diplomat immunity and there fore not subject to our laws.

There are many many illegal immigrants serving jail time in state and federal prisons in USA so clearly they ARE subject to our jurisdiction.  There fore the 14 amendment should apply to them.



I live in Georgia. There are people here still mad at Obama (aka Obummer, aka Odumba, aka whatever elementary school name they come up with) for trying to change the Constitution and "take away our guns". Those same people are okay with Trump changing the Constitution.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Birthright citizenship is dumb, you should not be able to claim citizenship in a country you have no real connection to. But i don't think one person should be allowed to make an unilateral decision to change the constitution of a country.



Switch friend-code: 6700-1526-7903

PSN: melbye82