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

I regret not voting last term (even if both candidates sucked tbh). America is becoming the laughing stock of the world more and more everyday. It will takes years to repair the damage Trump has done to the US name




'Video games are bad for you? That's what they said about rock-n-roll.'
-Shigeru Miyamoto

Around the Network
melbye said:
Hiku said:

I'm not talking about the parents. If offspring's citizenship is dependent on their parents, then none of the children born from the people who came to colonize America and murdered the original inhabitants would be valid.
And that's not answering the question.
If being being born and raised in a country is not 'a real connection to it' then what is?

Maybe it's because i am still not feeling well, but i really don't understand what you are trying to say

Alright, I'll try to explain.
You described a person born from illegal immigrants in the US as someone with "no real connection" to the country.
Those children will obviously grow up in the country. So according to you, who has more of a connection to a country than someone who grew up in it?
Those are typically the ideal citizens, who were born, raised and educated in a country, and have that attachment to it.

Last edited by Hiku - on 31 October 2018

Machiavellian said:
LiquorandGunFun said:

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.

This has nothing to do with balls but instead him wanting to throw some meat to his base.  If he had the balls to bring this up then he would have the balls to go through the proper channels and get Congress to bring it to a vote.  Trump working within the system and the powers of his office, negotiating and getting things done is what takes balls.  

As for you doing homework for me, lol.  I have read plenty of pros and cons for what the president can do.  All of it is theory when it comes to the constitution.  Throwing Obama name into the hate means nothing to me since I didn't even vote for him.  Every time someone has an issue with the policies Trump want to do it seems people like you want to throw Hillary or Obama into the hat as if that absolves what the current administration is doing.  Out of all those links, the GOP kept praising how this is a constitution win like Obamacare funding.  If that is the case why would they want another example of the President overreach.  

As I stated in my original post, yes this will probably go to the SC but my personal opinion is that it still needs proper due process.

Oh you don't need to comment on anything in those posts. Nothing in there is legally sufficient or shows any understanding of how the courts interpret the Constitution. Neither the poster or the writer of those articles should be doing any homework for anyone about these issues. 

As a note, this is not really about due process. Just that the type of issue that would be brought up has relatively little legal history. It's quite possible the SC wouldn't even take the case because of past court precedent. There isn't much legal scholarship suggesting that the 14th Amendment doesn't encapsulate birthright citizenship. The argument the court would possibly take on is whether or not "subject to the jurisdiction of" covers those that enter illegally. I don't think that argument has too much weight though because no one would suggest that if someone illegally entered and committed a crime, that the US wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute. TBH that statement was mainly meant to say that foreign diplomats and indigenous tribes were not covered by this. While being within the physical jurisdiction of the US, they were subject to other powers. 



melbye said:
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.

You do realize that we're talking about newborn babies, right? So what kind of connection with a country does the newborn have? 



Zucas said:

Oh you don't need to comment on anything in those posts. Nothing in there is legally sufficient or shows any understanding of how the courts interpret the Constitution. Neither the poster or the writer of those articles should be doing any homework for anyone about these issues. 

As a note, this is not really about due process. Just that the type of issue that would be brought up has relatively little legal history. It's quite possible the SC wouldn't even take the case because of past court precedent. There isn't much legal scholarship suggesting that the 14th Amendment doesn't encapsulate birthright citizenship. The argument the court would possibly take on is whether or not "subject to the jurisdiction of" covers those that enter illegally. I don't think that argument has too much weight though because no one would suggest that if someone illegally entered and committed a crime, that the US wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute. TBH that statement was mainly meant to say that foreign diplomats and indigenous tribes were not covered by this. While being within the physical jurisdiction of the US, they were subject to other powers. 

This link paints a pretty good picture of what you are talking about and I believe if Trump wants to go down this route, if anything the case would be if he actually have the authority to even do this based on an EO.

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/birthright-citizenship-is-not-a-legal-assumption-its-the-law/

When all is said and done, if people really want to change how this amendment is worded or restrict its meaning, it sill needs to go through congress and ratified by the states.



Around the Network
melbye said:
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.

How does someone have no connection when they're born and raised in a place?



Wyrdness said:
melbye said:
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.

How does someone have no connection when they're born and raised in a place?

I am no talking about when they are grown up, i am talking about when they are still newborns. Should have clarified that, my mistake



Nothing to see here, move along

melbye said:
Wyrdness said:

How does someone have no connection when they're born and raised in a place?

I am no talking about when they are grown up, i am talking about when they are still newborns. Should have clarified that, my mistake

Being born somewhere still means you have a connection to that place more so than any other place at that moment that's still a contradiction.



"My question, what are people thoughts on this current move by President Trump."

what move? what steps has he taken to do this?



Wyrdness said:
melbye said:

I am no talking about when they are grown up, i am talking about when they are still newborns. Should have clarified that, my mistake

Being born somewhere still means you have a connection to that place more so than any other place at that moment that's still a contradiction.

I think they should get the citizenship to the country the parents belong to.



Nothing to see here, move along