• 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

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
31,009
Reaction score
9,029
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

snip...

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html



If allowed to stand, this would be a significant battle in the war against illegal migration.
 
I think he is going to find out the hard way, just how hard it is to amend the Constitution.
 
It will not be allowed to stand as the Constitution is very very clear:

Section 1. 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.

This is all about an authoritarian leaning right wing president simply sucking up to the racist and xenophobic deplorables who make up so much of his base. He wants them to believe he has done something for them when all he has done is spit on the Constitution.

The Constitution would have to be amended to achieve what trump wants to do.
 
I highly doubt this is gonna go through. If he does try, it's gonna get immediately challenged.
 
I think he is going to find out the hard way, just how hard it is to amend the Constitution.

He is just pandering to his sheep, as with many other issues he will find it is hard work and simply give up while blaming everyone else.
 
He is just pandering to his sheep, as with many other issues he will find it is hard work and simply give up while blaming everyone else.

Yeah. "Them damn obstructionist Dems won't let me change the Constitution."

Yeah, we won't. Good.
 
I really don't have any idea what it would take to amend an amendment, but I do think it will be good to have Constitutional scholars argue the merits of what this amendment was meant for when it was adopted, as compared to how it is abused today.
 
Best I can find on this, Trump is setting himself up for a Constitutional challenge that speaks right to the 14th Amendment.

And of course Trump is telling more falsehoods when selling this saying "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States"... yet Canada, Mexico, most of South America also has birthright citizenship.
 
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

snip...

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html



If allowed to stand, this would be a significant battle in the war against illegal migration.

I dont see where it would be legal to do it this way, but we certainly need to remove citizenship based on where you are born. Natural citizenship should only go to someone born to a citizen.
 
Yeah. "Them damn obstructionist Dems won't let me change the Constitution."

Yeah, we won't. Good.

The Left attempts to subvert the Constitution on a regular basis. Y'all should be thrilled.

Why exactly do you oppose this move? [other than because it's Trump's doing]
 
Last edited:
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

snip...

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html



If allowed to stand, this would be a significant battle in the war against illegal migration.

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.
 
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.

I agree. This also affects chain migration.
 
The pregnancy tourism industry isn't happy today.
 
I really don't have any idea what it would take to amend an amendment, but I do think it will be good to have Constitutional scholars argue the merits of what this amendment was meant for when it was adopted, as compared to how it is abused today.


There are more than one Amendments that fit that reply; careful what you wish for......slippery slope ahead!
 
It will not be allowed to stand as the Constitution is very very clear:

Section 1. 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.

This is all about an authoritarian leaning right wing president simply sucking up to the racist and xenophobic deplorables who make up so much of his base. He wants them to believe he has done something for them when all he has done is spit on the Constitution.

The Constitution would have to be amended to achieve what trump wants to do.


Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is what is going to be clarified. Personally I believe you need a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship, however that particular phrase can be pushed rather reasonably to construe jurisdiction meaning somebody subject to US primarily. An unlawful alien would then be considered subject to foreign law primarily. I consider such interpretation a stretch as I am a textualist, however such meaning can be reasonably derived from the text by reasonable people. Further arguments for said amendment brought this subject up at the time it was ratified, said arguments were a mixed bag.
 
There are more than one Amendments that fit that reply; careful what you wish for......slippery slope ahead!

And they've been challenged!
 
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is what is going to be clarified. Personally I believe you need a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship, however that particular phrase can be pushed rather reasonably to construe jurisdiction meaning somebody subject to US primarily. An unlawful alien would then be considered subject to foreign law primarily. I consider such interpretation a stretch as I am a textualist, however such meaning can be reasonably derived from the text by reasonable people. Further arguments for said amendment brought this subject up at the time it was ratified, said arguments were a mixed bag.

I agree with you - you need a constitutional amendment to get this done.

I don't think Trump has a snowballs chance in hell of getting this approved by the Court. Let him hang his hat on that language you cited - and he will still go down in flames.
 
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is what is going to be clarified. Personally I believe you need a constitutional amendment to change birthright citizenship, however that particular phrase can be pushed rather reasonably to construe jurisdiction meaning somebody subject to US primarily. An unlawful alien would then be considered subject to foreign law primarily. I consider such interpretation a stretch as I am a textualist, however such meaning can be reasonably derived from the text by reasonable people. Further arguments for said amendment brought this subject up at the time it was ratified, said arguments were a mixed bag.

I'm trying to follow along as a lay person, but are you saying that an illegal alien is or might be more subject to the jurisdiction of their own country than the U.S., even if they happen to give birth on U.S. soil?
Thanks.
 
Not politically possible, nor is it a wise announcement before an election.
 
President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

snip...

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...der-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html



If allowed to stand, this would be a significant battle in the war against illegal migration.

It requires more than an executive order to Amend the Constitution.
 
It requires more than an executive order to Amend the Constitution.

Obama used EO to keep the Dreamers here. It's obvious the Left wants to keep it for selfish reasons.
 
Obama used EO to keep the Dreamers here. It's obvious the Left wants to keep it for selfish reasons.

Obama's EO didn't change the Constitution.
 
Maybe Chump can address two issues simultaneously before the midterm elections conclude, rescinding Birthright Citizenship and providing a significant middle class tax cut?

Also, if you believe Chump and the politicians up for election who support him, we can thank them for great health insurance that includes coverage for pre-existing conditions. Do not let the Evil Press and the Evil DEMs sway your loyalty to Chump! Not!

Please, as best you can, use Knowledge-Based Decision Making when you vote!
 
I agree with you - you need a constitutional amendment to get this done.

I don't think Trump has a snowballs chance in hell of getting this approved by the Court. Let him hang his hat on that language you cited - and he will still go down in flames.

Do not count him out. Everyone does and so far they get burned. The government can make a very strong argument on that phase Subject to the jurisdiction thereof . The 14th has never really been pushed in court. Remember you yourself misconstrue in the second amendment the phrase A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, that meaning in its context is more clear than that of the 14th and we know how much horse crap we deal with on the 2nd A. We will find out soon enough how this will ply out.
 
Back
Top Bottom