Birth right citizenship

[Deluge]

37 minutes ago, robosmith said:

1. Nothing illegal about allowing ASYLUM CLAIMS and DACA was legalized for renewals.

2. When a judge gives an immigrant a court date for their asylum claim HEARING, they are NOT here ILLEGALLY.

1. From the Mexican side of the border. But even then we're getting too many mouths to feed. It's time to reject all applicants except for genuine contributors, and even then a controlled number. 

2. When a judge pulls that shit, he or she needs to be removed from the judges seat. 

[Deluge]

31 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump's EO is a direct violation of the 14th amendment. Allowing ASYLUM claims is common law.

Given the fact that you traitors are trying to dissolve the borders and brown the country, it's time for an emergency EO that kills everything democrats want for immigration.

I'm sorry, robotreason, but it's the only way to keep the country intact. 

[Reg Volk]

 

[User]

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

There is nothing in the Constitution about deporting child immigrants, and that's why you've posted NO EVIDENCE.

There is noting written on the bathroom stall about it either.

WTF does this have to do with anything!?

[Deluge]

On 4/3/2026 at 4:13 PM, robosmith said:

There is nothing in the Constitution about deporting child immigrants, and that's why you've posted NO EVIDENCE.

There is nothing in the Constitution about rewarding wrong behavior. Breaking into the country and dropping a newborn is a wrong behavior, and both parent and newborn need to be deported together because they are BOTH ILLEGAL.  

[robosmith]

On 4/3/2026 at 3:27 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Sure...SCOTUS is going to rule that all illegals can stay...because...TRUMP !!!

No SCOTUS is going to rule that born here are citizens because that's what the Constitution SAYS. Duh

You need another amendment to change an existing amendment.

[gatomontes99]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

No SCOTUS is going to rule that born here are citizens because that's what the Constitution SAYS. Duh

You need another amendment to change an existing amendment.

Why do you ignore the part that says they have to be residents?

Edited April 8 by gatomontes99

[Deluge]

On 4/2/2026 at 9:04 PM, gatomontes99 said:

14th Amendment

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....

**********

The argument that any kid, born within our borders, is a citizen is invalid. 

The low hanging fruit of this controversial subject is tourists. Especially birth right tourists. Coming to America just to have a baby is not protected or guaranteed by the 14th. Residency is a requirement. 

The more difficult argument is illegal aliens that stay in the US for a prolonged period and have children. Have they established residency. 

The Trump argument is that if you don't establish legal residency than you don't have residency and cannot confer citizenship. Everyone else is saying if you happen to give birth inside the borders, it's the same as if a citizen gave birth.

In a perfect world, I would have no problem with the everyone else's argument. However, birth tourism and illegal aliens giving birth to children as anchor babies creates a set of problems that need to be addressed. 

I don't think an E.O. is the best solution. Congress needs to create a law that specifies what residency constitutes. Residency should be defined as legally established in the United States for a minimum of 1 year. 

 

This one pisses me off because it's so basic. When you reduce this to its simplest form it's clear that citizens beget citizens, and non-citizens beget non-citizens. And yet the scumbag part of this country has managed to keep the current definition in play for over 100 years. It's mind blowing. 

Edited April 8 by Deluge

[John Stone]

The legal principle granting automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is not just a constitutional or immigration issue.

It is also a matter of fraud and national security.

 

[Deluge]

32 minutes ago, John Stone said:

The legal principle granting automatic citizenship to nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is not just a constitutional or immigration issue.

It is also a matter of fraud and national security.

 

Which is why the current interpretation needs to be thrown out and clarification on the 14th be made. 

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Which is why the current interpretation needs to be thrown out and clarification on the 14th be made. 

............... but not thru EO ......... too political  .......... and temporary. 

arguably good to get the conversation started tho 

[Deluge]

8 minutes ago, John Stone said:

............... but not thru EO ......... too political  .......... and temporary. 

arguably good to get the conversation started tho 

EO can also stand for Emergency Order. This is an emergency, and I'm all for rectifying a critical problem like foreign invasion through the 14th Amendment. 

[John Stone]

35 minutes ago, Deluge said:

EO can also stand for Emergency Order. This is an emergency, and I'm all for rectifying a critical problem like foreign invasion through the 14th Amendment. 

 

......... do it correctly - thru legislation........  make it enduring?

Controversy has raged for decades........... I'd hesitate to call it an emergency.

It is does make a great political debate - divisive no question .......Trump saw that and bit down hard. 

But he is correct  on this ........... as he was correct on NATO funding .......... and of course, the border. 

 

Edited April 8 by John Stone

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, John Stone said:

 

......... do it correctly - thru legislation........  make it enduring?

 

First things first. The other side is loopholing the shit out of our immigration system so something has to be done now. think of the EO as a stopgap until we can get the 14th redefined. 

[John Stone]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

First things first. The other side is loopholing the shit out of our immigration system so something has to be done now. think of the EO as a stopgap until we can get the 14th redefined. 

SCOTUS will rule on Trumps challenge to the 14th in June. 

He hasn't a hope in hell of getting a favorable decision.

........... he did raise the issue tho.. kudos in that respect. 

 

[Legato]

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, John Stone said:

SCOTUS will rule on Trumps challenge to the 14th in June. 

He hasn't a hope in hell of getting a favorable decision.

........... he did raise the issue tho.. kudos in that respect. 

 

You're probably right. Too many key Americans are scared shitless to make pro-America moves. It's mind blowing.