• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump did, in fact, say he can override the 14th amendment w/EO

Casca XV said:
No, he said he would up hold the 14th amendment. Anchor Babys as US citizens is forbidden by it.
Click to expand...

If it's already forbidden then why would he bother writing an executive order?
 
Chomsky said:
Well, essentially they're arguing the "subject to" clause, which we already know. So quite honestly, this is no more proof than what has already been argued by some.

It's going to take the courts to prove this out.
Click to expand...

This was decided and ruled on long ago
But then, in 1898, the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, holding that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States" was entitled to citizenship based on his birth on American soil.
Click to expand...

The debate is actually on the definition of permanent domicile in the United States
 
OscarLevant said:
This was decided and ruled on long ago


The debate is actually on the definition of permanent domicile in the United States
Click to expand...
Great insight, and reference! Thanks.
 
GDViking said:
That would be incorrect, I was born In Germany by American parents, when I turned 18 I had to choose. As of now I am only an American citizen but I am free to claim dual citizenship as a German if I so choose.
Click to expand...

You are white so Trump et al won't have a problem with you [/snark]
 
Casca XV said:
No, he said he would up hold the 14th amendment. Anchor Babys as US citizens is forbidden by it.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it say that children born in the USA of foreign born parents shall not be given citizenship?
 
OscarLevant said:
This was decided and ruled on long ago


The debate is actually on the definition of permanent domicile in the United States
Click to expand...

Wong kim Ark's parents were legally in the USA at the time of his birth. It is an irrelevent example as to what is being argued.
 
OscarLevant said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that children born in the USA of foreign born parents shall not be given citizenship?
Click to expand...

It doesnt.
However Article I Sec VIII grants Congress authority over naturalization issues.
The 14th amendment gives two standards for citizenship-- natural born birth AND the USA has juristiction over the person. Not much to be done about the first, but Congress can absolute adjust who and under what circumstances juristiction exists.
 
OscarLevant said:
Wiki:


The 14th Amendment has been cited in many significant SCOTUS rulings. Now Trump thinks he can override it with an EO.

Click to expand...


Why are you surprised government thinks it is above the law? Let me guess...your solution is more government?
 
Athanasius68 said:
It doesnt.
However Article I Sec VIII grants Congress authority over naturalization issues.
The 14th amendment gives two standards for citizenship-- natural born birth AND the USA has juristiction over the person. Not much to be done about the first, but Congress can absolute adjust who and under what circumstances juristiction exists.
Click to expand...

If a baby is born here on US soil, who else but the USA and the state where the baby lives would have jurisdiction over that person?
 
This is the President firing up his base. An EO will not override the 14th, but it can set up an opportunity to reinterpret the amendment. Let’s see how this plays out.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It doesnt.
However Article I Sec VIII grants Congress authority over naturalization issues.
The 14th amendment gives two standards for citizenship-- natural born birth AND the USA has juristiction over the person. Not much to be done about the first, but Congress can absolute adjust who and under what circumstances juristiction exists.
Click to expand...

What other precedents has been set for this?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
It means diplomats, who are not subject to our jurisdiction, and in fact when a foreign diplomat gives birth in the US the child does NOT become a citizen. And at the time of the amendment it included Native Americans.
Click to expand...

My reading of it too. Everyone who sets foot in the United States is subject to U.S. "jurisdiction" unless he or she has the protective status of an embassy. To turn the counter argument on its head, if illegal aliens are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction what is the legal ground for expelling them?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Bob said:
A conservative bench is even MORE likely to follow the plain text interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Everyone expects Kavanagh to rule in the favor of the president on extending his presidential Powers but when he made that statement he expressed that he was hoping for a law that would enable him to rule that way. In other words he won't rule that way as he is a strict constructionist -- if it's not in the Constitution, so I advised Republicans don't falsely believe Kavanagh is going to interpret the Constitution like you want him to
 
Athanasius68 said:
It doesnt.
However Article I Sec VIII grants Congress authority over naturalization issues.
The 14th amendment gives two standards for citizenship-- natural born birth AND the USA has juristiction over the person. Not much to be done about the first, but Congress can absolute adjust who and under what circumstances juristiction exists.
Click to expand...

Don't expect any Bill anytime soon ruling on that
 
OscarLevant said:
Wiki:


The 14th Amendment has been cited in many significant SCOTUS rulings. Now Trump thinks he can override it with an EO.

Click to expand...


Trump says he does not need a constitutional amendment to interpret the 14th amendment. The authors of the 14th amendment specifically stated it was not meant to certify babies born to foreigners on American soil as American citizens.
 
Casca XV said:
Anchor Babies as US citizens have never been ruled by SCOTUS.

The Framers of the 14th Amendment specifically stated it was not for Illegal Alien children.

President Trump is correcting an injustice.
Click to expand...
This is flat out fake news idiocy. The "framers" of the 14th Amendment subsequently and specifically excluded wording that denied citizenship to children of illegal aliens. The idea was floated and clearly rejected.

I dare you to man up and say right here that this didn't happen.
 
Trump says things in hopes to spark debates, he is smart like that. He likes to plant seeds in the heads of people and get them to discuss the issues he wants. He is an expert in controlling the narrative of the left, and right. Love him!
 
RileyCoyote said:
Trump says things in hopes to spark debates, he is smart like that. He likes to plant seeds in the heads of people and get them to discuss the issues he wants. He is an expert in controlling the narrative of the left, and right. Love him!
Click to expand...

All Trump is doing is trying to appeal to his base of xenophobic racist deplorables giving them more red raw meat to gnaw on. That is it pure and simple.
 
haymarket said:
All Trump is doing is trying to appeal to his base of xenophobic racist deplorables giving them more red raw meat to gnaw on. That is it pure and simple.
Click to expand...

No, I really think he wants to change this right. Good luck with your TDS!
 
Simply more moronic Trump Blowhard BS. Lets see thinks Donald, who else can a scare into hiding on the one hand and fire up on the other with more of my nonsense.

Trump's mid-term mantra "Its Immigration Stupid"..... utterly moronic and 100% Trumpian.
 
haymarket said:
It is the mindless Trumpkins who are plagued by disabling TDS.
Click to expand...

I don't know, my mind works pretty good. It allows me to make judgements based on logic and fact.....not feelings, unlike those on the left who only feel their way through life. Glad my good thinking brain helps me to deal and cope with the real world and not some fantasy I make up to help me feel better. The truth shall set you free!
 
marke said:
Trump says he does not need a constitutional amendment to interpret the 14th amendment. The authors of the 14th amendment specifically stated it was not meant to certify babies born to foreigners on American soil as American citizens.
Click to expand...

Show us where it says that.....
 
RileyCoyote said:
No, I really think he wants to change this right. Good luck with your TDS!
Click to expand...

Then he should do so the proper way, the vast Majority if Congress pass an amendment then the States ratifying it, that is the correct method. Don't forget that an EO can be killed off by the next President.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom