• 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!

Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

Not going to happen. Even if it should happen...and it should...it wont.

Trump does not have the authority to amend the Constitution EOs do not amend. They do not add to. They cannot impose law. ALL EOs can do is dictate how laws are executed (up to the level and letter of the law).
 
It will be hard to get this passed. However, even though I'm a liberal, I agree that kirthright citizenship isn't really logical.
To me, a citizenship should mean that you're an integrated member of the culture and the country.

Here in Switzerland, you have to live in the country a minimum of 12 years, pass a test and show that you're integrated in society. I think that makes sense.

Oh God.......please let America catch up with Switzerland under President Trump!!!
 
Here is a quote containing the Official Congressional Record where the authors of the 14th tell everyone what was meant by the language used.



Thank you, and what a fascinating read. "Jurisdiction" seems to be how this can pivot?
(and thank you for your patience with my questions as someone who has less understanding, but great appreciation for our laws)
 
Any challenge to Trump's order would be upheld by the Liberal courts and then the Trump Supreme Court would have to rule on it.

This fogginess on the Jurisdiction issue alone would give plenty of room to uphold Trump's order.

Anchor babies are a ridiculous loophole anyway.

The courts have already totally changed the Second Amendment by playing with interpretation of original intent.......I don't see why they can't to some alteration on this one.
 
Any challenge to Trump's order would be upheld by the Liberal courts and then the Trump Supreme Court would have to rule on it.

This fogginess on the Jurisdiction issue alone would give plenty of room to uphold Trump's order.

Anchor babies are a ridiculous loophole anyway.

The courts have already totally changed the Second Amendment by playing with interpretation of original intent.......I don't see why they can't to some alteration on this one.

Why even have separation of powers if you simply want policies rubber stamped through the judiciary? You are basically advocating for toppling our entire system with this line of thinking. I agree with this policy but to circumvent the system just to achieve it is not how things should work in this country.
 
You wana bet? :lol: You think we have dog fights with the 2nd Amendment, this is gona make those look tame. All sides will have an actual leg to stand on to boot. I would hate to be a justice on this one. Mark my words the phrase Subject to the jurisdiction thereof will be the lynchpin of many ,valid I might add, arguments. That phrase can and will be used as a crowbar as it provides for the exception to the rule, All persons.

I will give Trump this, that man sure knows how to piss people off. He made the skill a scientific artform. :lol: Funny ass ****, if you ask me.

If you are correct, and the right hitches its wagon to that phrase, it will be one of the most intellectually fraudulent positions we have ever seen in the entire history of the USA.

The 14th is clear: ALL PERSONS born in the USA are citizens.

I agree that Trump is an ass - but not a funny one.
 
Why even have separation of powers if you simply want policies rubber stamped through the judiciary? You are basically advocating for toppling our entire system with this line of thinking. I agree with this policy but to circumvent the system just to achieve it is not how things should work in this country.

It's not "circumventing" the system.

It's using the system correctly to arrive at a correct outcome.

Most Americans would tell you that Anchor Babies are a horribly wrong way to establish citizenship.......a toxic loophole that is being abused by aliens.

I see progress coming.

Thank you, Mr. President.
 
Enforcing the 14th as written is not amending it.

As it is written says ALL PERSONS born in the USA are American citizens. Any deviation from that is intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
 
As it is written says ALL PERSONS born in the USA are American citizens. Any deviation from that is intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Wrong as usual haymarket.
The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not include illegal aliens.
 
Wrong as usual haymarket.
The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not include illegal aliens.

Persons born in the USA are not illegal aliens.
 
Persons born in the USA are not illegal aliens.
By the intent of the 14th Amendment's languge,
when they are born to an illegal alien they most certainly are, especially as their citizenship is transferred to them through their parents.
 
Wrong as usual haymarket.
The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not include illegal aliens.

That phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would seem to be a modifier, no?
 
It's not "circumventing" the system.

It's using the system correctly to arrive at a correct outcome.

Most Americans would tell you that Anchor Babies are a horribly wrong way to establish citizenship.......a toxic loophole that is being abused by aliens.

I see progress coming.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Don't thank him yet. He still hasn't passed a Constitutional amendment.
 
....And? The Executive can certainly have his agencies interpret that as meaning exactly what the Framers of the 14th said the wording meant, which is exactly what a previous Atty Gen said as well. And it can legally be done until the Court finds otherwise.

Which means it comes down to what the wording "subject to the jurisdiction" means.
We absolutely knows what the Framers of the 14th said it meant.
(See above posted info.)
Awesome. RWers have been screaming for years about "activist judges" and here they are interpreting the Constitution however they please. Sad.
 
By the intent of the 14th Amendment's languge,
when they are born to an illegal alien they most certainly are, especially as their citizenship is transferred to them through their parents.

The language of the 14th is clear: ALL PERSONS born in the USA are American citizens.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
 
Hmm...so, basically, you're the same as the Left: Respect the Constitution, except for the stuff you don't like. I swear, how you got so divided is beyond me, underneath your issues, you are all the same...hehe...

Why not change it? Meh...I don't have an excuse for you, knock yourself out. Just remember...once you open the door anyone can walk through it. Can you think of any other unconstitutional movements that are only being held back by the Constitution? ;)

This issue with the 14th has been out there for many decades and no one has bothered to address it. Trump is bringing it back to the forefront. It's also been abused by people from all sorts of countries to get around our laws.

I'd like to see the 10th amendment be paid more attention ... State's Rights.
 
Anybody who attempts to change the Constitution without following the proper channels is wrong, no matter what their political party.

Repeat after me:

Anybody... who... attempts... to... change... the... Constitution... without... following... the... proper... channels... is... wrong... no... matter... what... their... political... party.

See how easy that was? To say something is wrong without making it a partisan argument?

Well then, let the games begin..

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...t-citizenship-magnet-for-illegal-immigration/

BTW: would you be in favor of changing or abolishing the 14th? and Why?
 
No, actually it's not debatable at all. He has no power to do this whatsoever. He is now literally trying to re-write the constitution by executive fiat. The pure and simple fact that he would attempt to do this is in and of itself grounds for impeachment. He is blatantly violating his oath of office, and any member of the Supreme Court that would side with him should be thrown off the court as well.

Maybe he's just getting the conversation started?

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...t-citizenship-magnet-for-illegal-immigration/
 
and here they are interpreting the Constitution however they please. Sad.

Where do you get that from?
The words used have meaning.
The author of those words tell us in the Official Congressional Record what those specific words meant. That is fact, not interpretation.

The Court can certainly choose not to accept original intent, but that in no way changes what was intended.
 
The language of the 14th is clear: ALL PERSONS born in the USA are American citizens.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

And by posting that nonsense you again lie to everyone reading it.
The words used have meaning. The author of those words tells us exactly what they meant and you simply can not accept the facts.
 
If you are correct, and the right hitches its wagon to that phrase, it will be one of the most intellectually fraudulent positions we have ever seen in the entire history of the USA.

The 14th is clear: ALL PERSONS born in the USA are citizens.

I agree that Trump is an ass - but not a funny one.

If you look at the wording in the first section there are two tests, the first is jurisdiction, second is residency, All persons who meet the tests are then considered citizens. Your interpretation of the 14th is the exact opposite of the 2nd by the way. You require a strict textual interpretation of the 14th and a loose living constitution interpretation of the 2nd. I interpret both textually by the way. I personally think the 14th may need to be amended for clarifications sake, though from the original arguments it was made clear what they meant. I would be good with Congress clarifying jurisdiction and residency requirements instead. Either would be constitutional in my view.
 
Where do you get that from?
The words used have meaning.
The author of those words tell us in the Official Congressional Record what those specific words meant. That is fact, not interpretation.

The Court can certainly choose not to accept original intent, but that in no way changes what was intended.
Correct, words have meaning. What do these words mean to you?:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
 
Back
Top Bottom