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
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
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
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!
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?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.
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.So, where illegal aliens are concerned, let's say the illegal alien mother is here on a work VISA and she's pregnant.
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.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".
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.the 1873 slaughterhouse case stated the 14th was written for the former slave population
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?