• 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 can trump the 14th ammendment

Or so he says. By executive order, no less.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html

Is anyone stupid enough to believe this. Speak up Trumpers. Your time is now!

lets do some in depth thinking here!

Trump knows if he uses EO, it will be challenged in a court of law and that is what he wants

birth right citizenship has never been ruled on in the USSC.

NOTE:..the author of the 14th amendment stated that the amendment cannot be used for foreigners or family members of foreign political appointees
 
lets do some in depth thinking here!

Trump knows if he uses EO, it will be challenged in a court of law and that is what he wants

birth right citizenship has never been ruled on in the USSC.

NOTE:..the author of the 14th amendment stated that the amendment cannot be used for foreigners or family members of foreign political appointees



Maybe better discussion traction.


I stated this in the MSM section...


My interpretation;


"The preemptive text to justify "Born or naturalized in the US" and Subject to the Jursidiction thereof What was the point of this preemptive text if NOT to justify the legality of "Birth and Naturalization" That both MUST be of legal means to qualify as BORN in the US and Naturalized in the US?

IF "All Persons born or Naturalized in the US" are Citizens, then why NOT just say that, WHY the "Subject to the Jurisdiction there of" BECAUSE when you look at the INTENT of what the framers WANTED this is what justifies the legality of birth and naturalization."


Why add the preemptive text if it was "Intended" exactly that "ALL born or naturalized in the US are Citizens"

The Jurisdiction was to validate the BIRTH and Naturalization as valid PRIOR to awarding/gifting/assuming citizenship.
 
Maybe better discussion traction.


I stated this in the MSM section...


My interpretation;


"The preemptive text to justify "Born or naturalized in the US" and Subject to the Jursidiction thereof What was the point of this preemptive text if NOT to justify the legality of "Birth and Naturalization" That both MUST be of legal means to qualify as BORN in the US and Naturalized in the US?

IF "All Persons born or Naturalized in the US" are Citizens, then why NOT just say that, WHY the "Subject to the Jurisdiction there of" BECAUSE when you look at the INTENT of what the framers WANTED this is what justifies the legality of birth and naturalization."


Why add the preemptive text if it was "Intended" exactly that "ALL born or naturalized in the US are Citizens"

The Jurisdiction was to validate the BIRTH and Naturalization as valid PRIOR to awarding/gifting/assuming citizenship.

the 1873 slaughterhouse case stated the 14th was written for the former slave population
 
the 1873 slaughterhouse case stated the 14th was written for the former slave population

Exactly it Followed the 13th Amendment. There was Precedence as well as intent


the Loophole that "ALL born on US" soil is an abuse of the 14th and NOT the INTENT. More So the fact that there is a statement of JURISDICTION requirement to validate BIRTH and NATURALIZATION as a caveat PRIOR to awarding citizenship. ITS there to Discuss and ARGUE.
 
lets do some in depth thinking here!

Trump knows if he uses EO, it will be challenged in a court of law and that is what he wants

birth right citizenship has never been ruled on in the USSC.

NOTE:..the author of the 14th amendment stated that the amendment cannot be used for foreigners or family members of foreign political appointees

What Trump wants and is getting is PR on the issuing of an EO on alien children being US citizens born in the US. Trump wanted a pre-election talking point.

Just because Trump signs an EO that may be challenged in court, does not mean that case will be heard by the SC.

A federal court could rule the EO unconstitutional and a Trump appeal to the Court of Appeals could stop there with the Court of appeals not granting an appeal and concurring with the lower courts ruling.

The Supreme Court could refuse to take the case and leave the lower courts' rulings stand.
 
lets do some in depth thinking here!

Trump knows if he uses EO, it will be challenged in a court of law and that is what he wants

birth right citizenship has never been ruled on in the USSC.

NOTE:..the author of the 14th amendment stated that the amendment cannot be used for foreigners or family members of foreign political appointees

The "author" of the 14th amendment does not set intent. The language of the text does.

If the specific intent was not placed, word for word in the body of the amendment, then that presumed intended meaning is meaningless.
 
Or so he says. By executive order, no less.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/donald-trump-ending-birthright-citizenship/index.html

Is anyone stupid enough to believe this. Speak up Trumpers. Your time is now!

It would be tested all the way to the US Supreme Court. And it should be. It needs to be clarified/ What the 14th amendment is being used for today is not what the amendment was intended for. It's original intention was to protect former slaves from deportation and give them citizenship. it was never meant for "Illegally sneak across the border and birth a US citizen".
 
It would only take four justices to grant certiorari if this goes the distance. I could see it happening.
 
As I stated in this thread, the SC will not take up this issue because the term "subject to the jurisdiction" has already been defined and codified in U.S. law. In a nutshell, any person be s/he a U.S. citizen, a legal resident or simply a "visitor", for example, on U.S. soil or a business entity operating in the U.S. or its territories are all "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

So, where illegal aliens are concerned, let's say the illegal alien mother is here on a work VISA and she's pregnant. (Whether she came here expecting a child or she became pregnant during the course of holding a job on U.S. soil doesn't matter.) If she delivers the child in the U.S., because the new born is "actually within the United States" under paragraph (2) of U.S. Code section 515.330, the child is a U.S. citizen. The only way this changes is if Congress changes U.S. immigration law since it is only Congress that has the enumerated power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization".

Pres. Trump is using immigration as a way to curry voter support and Sen. Graham is playing on people's fears and emotions confident the voting electorate is full of fools.
 
Last edited:
The "author" of the 14th amendment does not set intent. The language of the text does.

If the specific intent was not placed, word for word in the body of the amendment, then that presumed intended meaning is meaningless.
And the language of the text specifies that a person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Foreign nationals are not subject to income taxes on overseas income. They also cannot be drafted. There's probably more they don't have to do. What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean, constitutionally?
 
So, where illegal aliens are concerned, let's say the illegal alien mother is here on a work VISA and she's pregnant.
Let's not say that, because your scenario is nonsensical. If an alien is here on a work visa, she is not, by definition, illegal, so long as she is not violating the terms of her admission.

If she delivers the child in the U.S., because the new born is "actually within the United States" under paragraph (2) of U.S. Code section 515.330, the child is a U.S. citizen. The only way this changes is if Congress changes U.S. immigration law since it is only Congress that has the enumerated power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization".
Wrong, and wrong again. You are not citing the US Code. You are citing the Code of Federal Regulations. They are not the same thing. The US Code is made up of statutes enacted by Congress and signed by the President. The CFR is made up of rules promulgated by federal agencies relating to how they will implement the US Code. Wrong Thing #1.

Wrong Thing #2: While action by Congress can change the CFR, it is not required to do so. Because the CFR is comprised of rules made by the executive branch agencies, executive branch actions are all that are required to change it.

So... bone up on immigration law, figure out the difference between the CFR and the USC, then come back and try to have a knowledgeable conversation.
 
the 1873 slaughterhouse case stated the 14th was written for the former slave population
The 14th is nothing more than a reiteration of Article 1 Section 2. The 14th was intended to be an exclusionary clause against " American Indians " at least so it says. However SCOTUS made several early rulings that set the stage for a change in the application of this amendment.

Sent from my SM-S920L using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom