By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

NateH on 30 October 2018

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.



Around the Network
Locknuts on 31 October 2018

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. 



NobleTeam360 on 31 October 2018

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



LiquorandGunFun on 31 October 2018
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.

  • A federal judge said his funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional.
  • A court was told Obama’s gun-control plans “exceed the powers of the president.”
  • National Review columnist Ilya Shapiro once pointed out Obama’s 10 top constitutional violations of 2015, including financial bailouts.
  • His belief that “gay” trumps religion in the U.S. Constitution.
  • His ordering of religious believers to provide abortion pills in violation of their faith.
  • The Iran deal.
  • Obama’s amnesty plan.
  • His agenda to enact same-sex “marriage.”
  • His recess appointments.
  • His refusal to deport illegal aliens.
  • His attempt to coerce Catholics to support birth control
  • His mandate over private health care records.
  • His orders that schools and public buildings open women’s restrooms to men who say they are women.
  • His insistence that states cannot deprive abortionists of public funding.
  • That the feds can orders states not to enforce immigration laws.
  • That the federal government can simply change definitions of words in federal law, even though it may cost Americans.
  • That he can decide which people will be allowed to move into certain neighborhoods.
  • That he can decide who faces prosecution.
  • That he can change the Constitution’s language, from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”
  • That he can dictate speech codes
  • That the IRS can selectively target Christians and conservatives because they disagree with Obama’s policies.

    • Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-claims-presidents-have-power-to-violate-constitution/#lVcco8XK37pVovec.99
    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.


     

    ArchangelMadzz on 31 October 2018

    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.



    There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
    2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
    2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
    2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

    Around the Network
    Pemalite on 31 October 2018
    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.



    --::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

    Cyran on 31 October 2018
    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.



    d21lewis on 31 October 2018

    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.



    melbye on 31 October 2018

    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.



    Machiavellian on 31 October 2018
    NateH said:
    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.

    Well you are right that the SC has never ruled on birthright citizenship but there is a case that already went to the SC 

    SC decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 when it ruled 6–2 that "14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory ... including all children here born of resident aliens." 

    What would get contested if Trump wanted to go down this route is whether the President can make a change to the amendment with an Executive Order.  I am all for having the amendment clarified so its not ambiious but I will be damned if I want any President to make any changes using an Executive Order.