• 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

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

At the present time?

When is the last time we had a responsible congress?

Not in my lifetime. Not in my father's, or his father's.

Please.

When is the last time we had a responsible congress?
 
Lord of Planar said:
At the present time?

When is the last time we had a responsible congress?

Not in my lifetime. Not in my father's, or his father's.

Please.

When is the last time we had a responsible congress?
Click to expand...

We have had congresses in my lifetime that actually worked together and passed legislation, especially emergency legislation that needed to be passed. But in my now long life, I have never experienced a political climate like we have now in which oneupmanship and power is ALL that matters to the Democrats that won't allow anything good or positive or constructive to happen. And I don't think the President is responsible for that at all.
 
A woman enters the U.S. illegally, has a child and then decides she would prefer to go back to the Country she came from. Should/would she not be allowed to take her child with her?
"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."

Child births by those who have not immigrated to the U.S. legally, should be required to be registered at an Embassy or Consulate of the Mothers origin. Perhaps the same should apply to even those who have immigrated legally, but yet to become a naturalized citizen. Naturalization of the parent would then be applied to the minor child as well, unless they have reached the age of maturity and decline it.

I see no reason the Supreme Court could not simply reinterpret the Constitution meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as the jurisdiction of a child is primarily the Mother.
 
Are people who are here illegally not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

That would mean they are not subject to our laws, can not be arrested, and therefore could not be deported.

Yet, the only argument for the validity of Trump's absurd claim of ending birthright citizenship via an EO is that phrase , subject to the jurisdiction."

There is no argument. The president just opens his mouth and lets nonsense spout out. This EO is an example. He probably doesn't even remember having said it.
 
Dittohead not! said:

The ‘Anchor Baby’ Myth
Having children who are US citizens is rarely a factor in immigration decisions




Some myths die hard.
Click to expand...

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
 
AlbqOwl said:
We have had congresses in my lifetime that actually worked together and passed legislation, especially emergency legislation that needed to be passed. But in my now long life, I have never experienced a political climate like we have now in which oneupmanship and power is ALL that matters to the Democrats that won't allow anything good or positive or constructive to happen. And I don't think the President is responsible for that at all.
Click to expand...

The goal by many in the political class is absolute power, not a better America. Think about it, if someone is a big government person the best thing you can have is country dominated by people living in poverty who desperately need government. Is there a country in the world where those in ruling class suffer?
 
AlbqOwl said:
We have had congresses in my lifetime that actually worked together and passed legislation, especially emergency legislation that needed to be passed. But in my now long life, I have never experienced a political climate like we have now in which oneupmanship and power is ALL that matters to the Democrats that won't allow anything good or positive or constructive to happen. And I don't think the President is responsible for that at all.
Click to expand...

WTH, the Dems are not for all intents and purposes shutting down the government, that should be the Repubs operating on Trump's will.
 
Cynical said:
The goal by many in the political class is absolute power, not a better America. Think about it, if someone is a big government person the best thing you can have is country dominated by people living in poverty who desperately need government. Is there a country in the world where those in ruling class suffer?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Which of course is why the Democrats and even some permanent political class Republicans encourage illegal immigration. It gives them a HUGE base of poor people who desperately need government and solidifies their power. It is unconscionable.
 
Casper said:
WTH, the Dems are not for all intents and purposes shutting down the government, that should be the Repubs operating on Trump's will.
Click to expand...

Most non sequitur post of the thread so far. Congratulations.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Most non sequitur post of the thread so far. Congratulations.
Click to expand...

I was replying to your own claim, good to know you think your comment was a non sequeter.
 
Rising Sun said:
Who, in the United States, isn't subject to US jurisdiction? The only ones I can think of are those with diplomatic immunity, such as in an embassy. If a Canadian was in the US, legally or illegally, are you saying they are not subject to US jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

Can someone here illegally be forced to serve in the US Military in case of a war?
 
Dittohead not! said:
What is that supposed to mean?

People living in the United States, whether they arrived legally or not, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they're Mexican citizens living in the USA, they're still subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Mexico isn't going to ask for them to be extradited unless they've committed a crime in Mexico. Whether or not they're under the jurisdiction of Mexico, the are under the jurisdiction of the united States.

Now, are you prepared to argue that an illegal does not have to abide by the laws of the United States?
Click to expand...

Can an illegal immigrant be forced to serve in the US Military in case of a war?
 
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...

Illegal aliens are indeed "under our jurisdiction" [while on our soil] That means we control their butts and can deport them as needed.
 
Cynical said:
Can an illegal immigrant be forced to serve in the US Military in case of a war?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

Can an illegal immigrant be arrested if he/she commits a crime? Can he/she be deported?
 
WCH said:
Illegal aliens are indeed "under our jurisdiction" [while on our soil] That means we control their butts and can deport them as needed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No. The original intent was to make all slaves born here, which were under our jurisdiction, full citizens. I believe those of the Indian Nations were not considered citizens under the amendment, as they were not under our jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

I think one of the better questions to the reasoning behind the 14th Amendment was likely to have more bodies available in times of war. Also there wasn't a welfare state then, so anyone being granted citizenship was not a economic detriment to American citizens.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Of course not.

Can an illegal immigrant be arrested if he/she commits a crime? Can he/she be deported?
Click to expand...

Oh goody, so they can't just steal from us, assault us, kill us, etc., etc., without consequences, well that's good to know.
 
Cynical said:
Oh goody, so they can't just steal from us, assault us, kill us, etc., etc., without consequences, well that's good to know.
Click to expand...

According to people arguing that we don't have jurisdiction over them, they can do exactly that. Of course, those people are wrong.
 
Exclusive: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship
Click to expand...

sorry, Tweety. not without an amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom