• 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 said:
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...

Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order - Axios



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

If this gets done, it needs to be done the right way. I don't like executive order. Yeah, some might argue against it, but it leaves too much in limbo. Get it passed by our lawmakers. They are collectively representing the country.
Just because I don't like br citizenship doesn't mean I agree with this.
 
Lovebug said:
If this gets done, it needs to be done the right way. I don't like executive order. Yeah, some might argue against it, but it leaves too much in limbo. Get it passed by our lawmakers. They are collectively representing the country.
Just because I don't like br citizenship doesn't mean I agree with this.
Click to expand...

If we had true representation this aspect of the 14th Amendment should have been dealt with decades ago when it was realized that foreigners were using this game our laws and putting a economic burden on the American taxpayer. The fact is that neither party ever wanted to deal with this because even doing the right thing amending would have been politically toxic since the race card would have been brought up.
 
Cynical said:
If we had true representation this aspect of the 14th Amendment should have been dealt with decades ago when it was realized that foreigners were using this game our laws and putting a economic burden on the American taxpayer. The fact is that neither party ever wanted to deal with this because even doing the right thing amending would have been politically toxic since the race card would have been brought up.
Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons I applaud Trump from time to time. I am not a fan of his, find his lack of manners and his decorum rather offputting. But I like him stirring up the debate about things that should have been dealt with a long time ago, but no one wanted to tackle. Why?
 
Lovebug said:
That is one of the reasons I applaud Trump from time to time. I am not a fan of his, find his lack of manners and his decorum rather offputting. But I like him stirring up the debate about things that should have been dealt with a long time ago, but no one wanted to tackle. Why?
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Trump either. On a personal level I think that he is Jackass, and he does nothing to appeal to anyone other than his base of support. The fact is that most of our so-called representatives are more concerned with representing themselves and their political party and holding on to their positions of power.
 
joko104 said:
Birth right citizenship is absurd and virtually no modern modern country allows it.
Click to expand...

The fact is that this should have been dealt with by our Representatives decades ago when it was first realized that non-citizens were using this as a means to put their babies on welfare at the US taxpayers expense. Whatever the intent if the 14th Amendment it clearly was not to incentivise impoverished women from neighboring countries to come to the US and put their babies into our welfare system.
 
Cynical said:
The fact is that this should have been dealt with by our Representatives decades ago when it was first realized that non-citizens were using this as a means to put their babies on welfare at the US taxpayers expense. Whatever the intent if the 14th Amendment it clearly was not to incentivise impoverished women from neighboring countries to come to the US and put their babies into our welfare system.
Click to expand...

That is part of what needs to be argued.

As for jurisdiction, if both a Mexican citizen and US citizen were in Canada, who would the Canadian's recognize as the country holding jurisdiction over the citizen. Who would they deport that person to if deportation was necessary? Well, they would deport them to the county of jurisdiction!

The US citizen would be departed to the USA, the Mexican citizen would be deported to Mexico.

Just that simple.

The 14th amendment was wrote to give prior slaves full citizenship. They were in fact governed exclusivity under US and state law. It was these people it was intended for.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Unfortunately the law says that we can't deport those claiming amnesty without due process. And when you have tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people who have been carefully instructed and coached in how to do exactly that, it makes it an impossible problem for the border patrol because they cannot be deported by law. And of course there is the problem of the anchor babies that currently are automatically considered citizens. And there is no easy way to deport parents when their kids can't be deported.

Congress could fix the problem now, today, if it wanted to. The Republicans would. The Democrats will not.
Click to expand...

Trouble with due process is that a higher percentage of them never return for their court dates. The system is rigged for them.
 
Cynical said:
If we had true representation this aspect of the 14th Amendment should have been dealt with decades ago when it was realized that foreigners were using this game our laws and putting a economic burden on the American taxpayer. The fact is that neither party ever wanted to deal with this because even doing the right thing amending would have been politically toxic since the race card would have been brought up.
Click to expand...

Some need to realize the "race card" is nothing but a tool of the Left to distract from real issues and needs to be ignored.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That is part of what needs to be argued.

As for jurisdiction, if both a Mexican citizen and US citizen were in Canada, who would the Canadian's recognize as the country holding jurisdiction over the citizen. Who would they deport that person to if deportation was necessary? Well, they would deport them to the county of jurisdiction!

The US citizen would be departed to the USA, the Mexican citizen would be deported to Mexico.

Just that simple.

The 14th amendment was wrote to give prior slaves full citizenship. They were in fact governed exclusivity under US and state law. It was these people it was intended for.
Click to expand...

If the Canadians had no jurisdiction over those foreign citizens, how would they deport them?
 
Lord of Planar said:
That is part of what needs to be argued.

As for jurisdiction, if both a Mexican citizen and US citizen were in Canada, who would the Canadian's recognize as the country holding jurisdiction over the citizen. Who would they deport that person to if deportation was necessary? Well, they would deport them to the county of jurisdiction!

The US citizen would be departed to the USA, the Mexican citizen would be deported to Mexico.

Just that simple.

The 14th amendment was wrote to give prior slaves full citizenship. They were in fact governed exclusivity under US and state law. It was these people it was intended for.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine that those who framed this law would in anyway be supportive of how it is functioning in regard to illegal immigrants having welfare babies for the American taxpayer to potentially support for life. The aspect I'm confused on is under current practice what child born here is not granted citizenship?
 
WCH said:
Some need to realize the "race card" is nothing but a tool of the Left to distract from real issues and needs to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Anyone with a half a brain realizes that birthright citizenship has been abused by many foreigners at the expense of the US citizen. Clearly that is not representation. Unfortunately I don't see the 14th Amendment ever being changed because so many of those in power will benefit by having the country overrun with poverty. More people in poverty = more people who need government. If we continue to absorb a million or so of the worlds most impoverished people year after year, what do you think the country is going to look like in say 20 years from now?
 
Cynical said:
I can't imagine that those who framed this law would in anyway be supportive of how it is functioning in regard to illegal immigrants having welfare babies for the American taxpayer to potentially support for life. The aspect I'm confused on is under current practice what child born here is not granted citizenship?
Click to expand...

I think if the legislators writing the 14th amendment could see the future, they would have made the language clear not to allow the anchor babies we have today.

What people forget is that the 13th to 15th amendments were specifically targeting the removal of slavery. It never was intended to touch on immigration.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I think if the legislators writing the 14th amendment could see the future, they would have made the language clear not to allow the anchor babies we have today.

What people forget is that the 13th to 15th amendments were specifically targeting the removal of slavery. It never was intended to touch on immigration.
Click to expand...

And I think you are wrong. The founding fathers wrote exactly what they wanted. Dont like it? Amend the constitution
 
Cynical said:
Anyone with a half a brain realizes that birthright citizenship has been abused by many foreigners at the expense of the US citizen. Clearly that is not representation. Unfortunately I don't see the 14th Amendment ever being changed because so many of those in power will benefit by having the country overrun with poverty. More people in poverty = more people who need government. If we continue to absorb a million or so of the worlds most impoverished people year after year, what do you think the country is going to look like in say 20 years from now?
Click to expand...

Venezuela
 
I already posted this once on this thread. Maybe a second time is in order:

Beyond its dehumanizing consequences, the myth of the “anchor baby” perpetuates the mistaken notion that having a U.S. citizen child is an effective means for unauthorized parents to stay in the United States. The fact is, having children who are U.S. citizens is rarely a factor in immigration decisions and the U.S. routinely rips families apart.
Click to expand...

source
 
vegas giants said:
And I think you are wrong. The founding fathers wrote exactly what they wanted. Dont like it? Amend the constitution
Click to expand...

The fact is that this should have been dealt with by our Representatives decades ago when it was first realized that non-citizens were using this as a means to put their babies on welfare at the US taxpayers expense. Do you actually believe the intent of the 14th Amendment was to incentivize impoverished women from neighboring countries to come to the US and put their babies into our welfare system at the US taxpayers expense?
 
Dittohead not! said:
I already posted this once on this thread. Maybe a second time is in order:



source
Click to expand...

And I already posted this response in this thread:

Nowhere in my post did I state that this was the number 1 reason people from countries like Central America come here. But the fact is there are many that do come here for that reason. Bottom line is that nearly 1/3 (approximately 300,00 anchor babies born per year) of those here illegally are having children at the US taxpayers expense:

Births to Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. | Center for Immigration Studies
 
Cynical said:
The fact is that this should have been dealt with by our Representatives decades ago when it was first realized that non-citizens were using this as a means to put their babies on welfare at the US taxpayers expense. Do you actually believe the intent of the 14th Amendment was to incentivize impoverished women from neighboring countries to come to the US and put their babies into our welfare system at the US taxpayers expense?
Click to expand...

My belief is not relevant. The wording is clear. Make an amendment
 
Cynical said:
And I already posted this response in this thread:

Nowhere in my post did I state that this was the number 1 reason people from countries like Central America come here. But the fact is there are many that do come here for that reason. Bottom line is that nearly 1/3 (approximately 300,00 anchor babies born per year) of those here illegally are having children at the US taxpayers expense:

Births to Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. | Center for Immigration Studies
Click to expand...



and there are few "anchor babies" whose parents are here because the baby is a citizen. That's simply a myth.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Yeah, I don't think that executive order will hold up in most courts. The 14th Amendment pretty much establishes the jus soli method of citizenship. Smart countries have jus sanginis in which a child must be born to citizen parents in order to be a citizen of that country. That is what the USA should have.

However there is a possible loophole in the 14th Amendment.

It does not say specifically that all persons born on U.S. soil are automatic citizens. The exact wording is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.".

So the President's attorneys may find some wiggle room there.

A responsible Congress would clear it up immediately, but we do not have a responsible Congress at the present time.
Click to expand...

So I guess the solution would be not to subject the children of illegal immigrants to American jurisdiction then.
 
Cynical said:
And I already posted this response in this thread:

Nowhere in my post did I state that this was the number 1 reason people from countries like Central America come here. But the fact is there are many that do come here for that reason. Bottom line is that nearly 1/3 (approximately 300,00 anchor babies born per year) of those here illegally are having children at the US taxpayers expense:

Births to Legal and Illegal Immigrants in the U.S. | Center for Immigration Studies
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as an anchor baby since the 1970's.

The citizenship of the child does not affect the ability of the parents to become citizens. You have to be an adult before that comes into play
 
Masterhawk said:
So I guess the solution would be not to subject the children of illegal immigrants to American jurisdiction then.
Click to expand...

The solution indeed is a system that discourages EVERYBODY who does not go through proper legal channels from coming here at all. And our current amnesty laws are so ridiculous that they are practically a huge neon sign over America flashing "ya'll come and claim amnesty and they'll let you stay as long as you want."
 
AlbqOwl said:
The solution indeed is a system that discourages EVERYBODY who does not go through proper legal channels from coming here at all. And our current amnesty laws are so ridiculous that they are practically a huge neon sign over America flashing "ya'll come and claim amnesty and they'll let you stay as long as you want."
Click to expand...

And the Republicans have never complained about that....when applied to Cubans, who mostly vote Republican.
 
pinqy said:
And the Republicans have never complained about that....when applied to Cubans, who mostly vote Republican.
Click to expand...

During the 1960's and 70's we had a large migration of Cubans fleeing Castro's vicious regime to America. Cuba was listed as a militarily oppressive state and therefore their citizens were entitled to amnesty status. Those who came to America came through legitimate channels. Our church in West Texas took one of those families to sponsor--the father had been Castro's political prisoner which was a horrendous experience for him. Democrats and Republicans were okay with this.

By the 1990's Cubans were still fleeing the Castro regime in numbers large enough to be alarming at that time--which is laughable these days. President Clinton established a "wet dry" policy--those who made it to land were allowed amnesty. Those intercepted at sea were turned back for humanitarian reasons as the sea voyage was hazardous and the USA did not want to encourage more and more to risk the hazardous journey. Republicans did not object.

President Obama ended amnesty status for Cubans who didn't already live here and Republicans did not object.

There are currently roughly 1.3 million Cubans living in the USA, all legally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom