Ending birthright citizenship

[h102]

On 10/30/2018 at 3:41 PM, turningrite said:

How, then, could they get into Canada? In general, it's not easy to get here other than on a visa and I suspect that very few visas to enter the U.S. or Canada are granted to stateless individuals. Most among the recent surge of refugee claimants entering Canada from the U.S. legally entered and/or were permitted to reside in the U.S. prior to coming here. I believe that most of the children born in Canada to those without Canadian permanent residency or citizenship are born to those who legitimately hold citizenship somewhere else. I think the biggest single problem that might emerge would be where children are born to a parent or parents who are failed refugee claimants who haven't been removed from Canada. In the U.S., the biggest problem will likely emerge among those who are born to a parent or parents who are residing there illegally. Any applicable law restricting birth tourism, whether here or in the U.S., could fairly easily address the issue of whether a child born to a parent without adequate status has a reasonable claim to citizenship somewhere else.

Illegally, they work their way throught Mexico, Usa, etc.

 

On 10/30/2018 at 4:27 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is mostly a New World idea.   The United States has made birthright citizenship changes before to include , not exclude natural born citizens (e.g. ex-slaves and Native Americans born on sovereign reservations).    Trump would still face a serious Supreme Court challenge because of the 14th Amendment (1868), which exists because of the flawed Dred Scott decision and post Civil War political environment dominated by Republicans.

 

Under the originalist intent, the 14th amendment only applies to African Americans, along with the 13th and 15th as confirmed by the Slaughterhouse case.  Trump is surprisingly, in the legal right, for once.  You are also wrong, in thinking the 14th Amendment originally applied to natives, the natives were not allowed to vote or counted as citizens until the 1970s, it was never written for them.  As such, Trump is right, no birthright citizenship, we need to go all the way back and stripaway anchor baby citizenship.

[Don Jonas]

On 10/30/2018 at 12:52 PM, Truth Detector said:

Exactly.  It's about time this nonsense ended.  Otherwise, ban anyone that's pregnant from visiting.

So you're in favour of presidents using executive power to override the constitution? Something tells me you would have opposed such an action on principle if Obama were involved.

[bush_cheney2004]

46 minutes ago, h102 said:

Under the originalist intent, the 14th amendment only applies to African Americans, along with the 13th and 15th as confirmed by the Slaughterhouse case.  Trump is surprisingly, in the legal right, for once.  You are also wrong, in thinking the 14th Amendment originally applied to natives, the natives were not allowed to vote or counted as citizens until the 1970s, it was never written for them.  As such, Trump is right, no birthright citizenship, we need to go all the way back and stripaway anchor baby citizenship.

 

You are wrong for assuming I think the 14th Amendment applied to Native Americans, and wrong about when they were granted citizenship and permitted to vote.

Trump will not be successful in this endeavour...it is pure political theatre.

[Boges]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trump will not be successful in this endeavour...it is pure political theatre.

Indeed.

Don't talk about taking away healthcare to be able to afford tax cuts for billionaires. Lets make up a fake constitutional crisis that people can debate and not talk about the real issues. It's being done with this Caravan as well. Trump needs an enemy to feel like he's winning. 

[Shady]

5 hours ago, Don Jonas said:

So you're in favour of presidents using executive power to override the constitution? Something tells me you would have opposed such an action on principle if Obama were involved.

I said nothing of executive order.  I said that it needs to be changed, through the normal constitutional process.  However, banning pregnant vistors could be achieved though executive order.  There's no constitutional right for somebody to visit the United States while pregnant.

[Boges]

18 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

I said nothing of executive order.  I said that it needs to be changed, through the normal constitutional process.  However, banning pregnant vistors could be achieved though executive order.  There's no constitutional right for somebody to visit the United States while pregnant.

So then you have Border Services stopping chubby women to determine if they're pregnant or not? 

You're just stating that it's something that can be done through EO, not something that is even remotely workable in any way, shape or form. 

[Shady]

33 minutes ago, Boges said:

So then you have Border Services stopping chubby women to determine if they're pregnant or not? 

You're just stating that it's something that can be done through EO, not something that is even remotely workable in any way, shape or form. 

Women that are pregnant are already stopped and questioned when arriving in the United States and Canada.  It's not something new.  Generally they're asked how far along they are, and if they can afford to pay for the delivery if it occurs.

[Boges]

46 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

Women that are pregnant are already stopped and questioned when arriving in the United States and Canada.  It's not something new.  Generally they're asked how far along they are, and if they can afford to pay for the delivery if it occurs.

And people would be honest about their pregnancy because there's nothing wrong with travelling while pregnant. You ban women from entering the country pregnant, and then they hide it and then you create a new level of government worker trying to figure out if a woman is pregnant or just fat. 

These are things people can theorize in a forum but it's 100% unworkable in a real world setting. You going to have people stop woman at border crossings to see if they're pregnant? 

[h102]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

You are wrong for assuming I think the 14th Amendment applied to Native Americans, and wrong about when they were granted citizenship and permitted to vote.

Trump will not be successful in this endeavour...it is pure political theatre.

I'm not assuming, it is very clear what congress intent was, we know this from the slaughterhouse case and historical facts.  Native Indians could not vote off of that Amendment, because it never applied to them.

"This finally was stated with the Indian Citizenship Act which was created on June 2, 1924. This act showed progress in that Natives would not have to give up being a Native to be a citizen of the United States. This included being an enrolled member of a tribe, living on a federally recognized reservation, or practicing his or her culture.^[55] However, this did not create the right to vote automatically."

Trump will succeed, the court is originalist majority.

[Boges]

26 minutes ago, h102 said:

Trump will succeed, the court is originalist majority.

You're assuming Trump will see a Republican controlled congress beyond January. That's a big if. 

And Trump's initial claim was that all it would take to change constitution is an Executive Order. I guess Obama should have repealed the 2nd Amendment when he could then. 

[turningrite]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

And people would be honest about their pregnancy because there's nothing wrong with travelling while pregnant. You ban women from entering the country pregnant, and then they hide it and then you create a new level of government worker trying to figure out if a woman is pregnant or just fat. 

These are things people can theorize in a forum but it's 100% unworkable in a real world setting. You going to have people stop woman at border crossings to see if they're pregnant? 

I suspect the real issue in the U.S. relates to children born to undocumented migrants who are in many/most cases technically living in the U.S. illegally (or 'irregularly', as many in this country would insist). Many/most of these women cannot be stopped at the border because they're already residing in the country when they get pregnant. The situation in Canada, where reportedly many such children are born to women who travel here for the specific purpose of obtaining birthright Canadian citizenship for their newborn children, is different. Fortunately, we're not restricted by any law similar to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and could end the practice quite easily. Ironically, the U.S. law emerged from what was at the time a long-standing principle in British common law but Britain itself no longer follows this principle in relation to birthright citizenship. The goal shouldn't be to stop pregnant women at the border but should instead be to clarify the circumstances under which citizenship is granted where children are born in a country to a parent or parents who lack status in that country. Only a relatively small number of countries grant birthright citizenship to children of a parent or parents who lack status and in fact very few if any Western countries other than the U.S. and Canada do.

Edited November 1, 2018 by turningrite

[bush_cheney2004]

32 minutes ago, h102 said:

I'm not assuming, it is very clear what congress intent was, we know this from the slaughterhouse case and historical facts.  Native Indians could not vote off of that Amendment, because it never applied to them.

 

This topic has nothing to do with voting....many African Americans could not vote because of state barriers until the Voting Rights Act was passed 100 years later.

 

Quote

Trump will succeed, the court is originalist majority.

 

Nope...not going to happen.... Trump is just having some fun for the election.

[Boges]

11 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I suspect the real issue in the U.S. relates to children born to undocumented migrants who are in many/most cases technically living in the U.S. illegally (or 'irregularly', as many in this country would insist). Many/most of these women cannot be stopped at the border because they're already residing in the country when they get pregnant. The situation in Canada, where reportedly many such children are born to women who travel here for the specific purpose of obtaining birthright Canadian citizenship for their newborn children, is different. Fortunately, we're not restricted by any law similar to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and could end the practice quite easily. Ironically, the U.S. law emerged from what was at the time a long-standing principle in British common law but Britain itself no longer follows this principle in relation to birthright citizenship. The goal shouldn't be to stop pregnant women at the border but should instead be to clarify the circumstances under which citizenship is granted where children are born in a country to a parent or parents who lack status in that country. Only a relatively small number of countries grant birthright citizenship to children of a parent or parents who lack status and in fact very few if any Western countries other than the U.S. and Canada do.

Similar to the 2nd amendment, when you enshrine something in the Constitution you create an absolutist view on that issue. If you're born in the US, you're a citizen, no question asked. You have the right to bear arms, no restrictions needed. You have freedom of speech, this includes hate speech and inciting violence. 

[turningrite]

27 minutes ago, Boges said:

Similar to the 2nd amendment, when you enshrine something in the Constitution you create an absolutist view on that issue. If you're born in the US, you're a citizen, no question asked. You have the right to bear arms, no restrictions needed. You have freedom of speech, this includes hate speech and inciting violence. 

Trump's camp says the 14th Amendment is more nuanced than generally presented and that there's an escape hatch of sorts. Who knows? Constitutional law is generally quite arcane and certainly beyond my expertise. I have read quite a few pieces on this topic over the past few days, including the views expressed by some lawyers who albeit expressing a minority opinion believe the 14th Amendment citizenship provision may in fact be open to interpretation. With a right-wing SCOTUS majority in place, perhaps Trump will get some traction on this although it's not clear the issue has arisen at this point for any reason other than to inspire his base prior to next week's midterm elections. But this is not the first time he's raised his concerns on the matter, having addressed these while seeking the GOP nomination and the presidency.

Edited November 1, 2018 by turningrite

[Boges]

He's not serious about this issue. It's just his new version of the Wall. 

Anyone who really thinks he's serious is as gullible as DT hopes you are. 

[bush_cheney2004]

This is not a new issue....President Obama and some states already fought this battle to establish more benefits for children of illegal immigrants (e.g. education in California).    The very term "anchor baby" has been politicized as "hate speech" by advocates for illegals and open borders. 

No matter the outcome, President Trump has proven once again how he can take control of the horizontal and vertical hold when it comes to the news media.  

Illegal immigrants have provided Trump with a lot of the fuel for his success, and the marches to the southern border just continue this trend.

 

[h102]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

This topic has nothing to do with voting....many African Americans could not vote because of state barriers until the Voting Rights Act was passed 100 years later.

 

 

Nope...not going to happen.... Trump is just having some fun for the election.

They could vote during reconstruction. When reconstruction ended, the states simply stopped following the laws because the federal government refused to enfforce them.  Plus, think of what you are comparing, MANY African Americans could not vote because they had to pay poll taxes or guess the number of jelly beans in a jar, whereas Native Indians couldn't vote because they weren't citizens.  Big difference. Even where African Americans couldn't vote due to violence, voter intimidation, obscure laws that made it harder if not impossible to vote, they were still regarded as citizens.

The reality is they wouldn't need a 1924 INdian citizenship Act if Indians were counted under the 14th amendment.

Nope, Trump is right, this will be approved by his conservative supreme court.

[h102]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Similar to the 2nd amendment, when you enshrine something in the Constitution you create an absolutist view on that issue. If you're born in the US, you're a citizen, no question asked. You have the right to bear arms, no restrictions needed. You have freedom of speech, this includes hate speech and inciting violence. 

But this goes beyond that, we are talking about constitutional rights for foreigners, which were never intended to have them.  You have the right to bear arms, sure, but do you really think that covers people vacationing and illegals crossing the border?  You have the right to free speech, but you can't pass a citizenship interview test if you are of poor moral character and have a pattern of saying retarded or outlandish things.  You also cannot donate money (considered speech ie citizens united case) as a foreigner in the US, despite free speech being the first amendment interpreted the most broadly.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, h102 said:

Nope, Trump is right, this will be approved by his conservative supreme court.

 

The point is moot....executive orders come and go...as Obama has...and Trump...will find out.

[h102]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The point is moot....executive orders come and go...as Obama has...and Trump...will find out.

How is it moot, they will be deported onc they lose citizenship.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, h102 said:

How is it moot, they will be deported onc they lose citizenship.

 

It is moot because they will not lose citizenship...natural born U.S. citizens cannot be deported from the United States unless they renounce their citizenship.

[h102]

On 11/1/2018 at 11:44 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It is moot because they will not lose citizenship...natural born U.S. citizens cannot be deported from the United States unless they renounce their citizenship.

Yeah they will, under his order they will lose it and then they will be deported.

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, h102 said:

Yeah they will, under his order they will lose it and then they will be deported.

 

Complete nonsense....citizenship requirements are established by the Constitution and legislation...not executive order.

 

[h102]

On 11/8/2018 at 2:58 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Complete nonsense....citizenship requirements are established by the Constitution and legislation...not executive order.

 

The constitution doesn't grant birth right citizenship for illegal immigrants, its not in there.