• 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: I'll rescind birthright citizenship [W:287]

TextDriversKill

Banned
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
1,235
Reaction score
281
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
The 14th amendment does NOT say anyone born in america is an american citizen. It says "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." A child born to an illegal mother inherits the nationality of the mother's country and is subject to the jurisdiction of that country.

 
Trump says birthright citizenship is the biggest magnet for illegals but i don't agree. What draws them most are the jobs and all the freebies we give them. But still BC is as wrong as anything can be and nearly all first world countries have dropped it.
 
It would take a constitutional amendment to undo birthright citizenship and I don't see that happening.
 



Whether you like it or not, that's not the way that it works.

Even if Trump was elected President of the USA (Which isn't going to happen.) he would never be able to do away with the 14th Amendment.
 
Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship
Click to expand...

not without a constitutional amendment, which will never happen. ****, at this point, the two sides couldn't even agree on a constitutional amendment stating that peanut butter tastes good. at least he's still entertaining, though.
 
azgreg said:
It would take a constitutional amendment to undo birthright citizenship and I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...



Click to expand...



If a GOP congress ever passed a constitutional amendment it would never survive a Democratic president's veto.

:lol:

Like you say - Not going to happen.
 

Wrong.

Amendment 14 - 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"or" not "and."

You and Trump are wrong, and worse Trump cannot on his own authority assuming he is elected President do a damn thing about it.
 
Last edited:

Nope, I bolded the relevant part. SCOTUS could easily interpret that to be that the mother has to be a citizen for it to apply.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, I bolded the relevant part. SCOTUS could easily interpret that to be that the mother has to be a citizen for it to apply.
Click to expand...

As in and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
 
shrubnose said:
Whether you like it or not, that's not the way that it works.

Even if Trump was elected President of the USA (Which isn't going to happen.) he would never be able to do away with the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Can't you read? You don't have to do away with the 14A. It does NOT grant automatic citizenship to anyone born in america. Again i say, can't you read?
 
Helix said:
not without a constitutional amendment, which will never happen. ****, at this point, the two sides couldn't even agree on a constitutional amendment stating that peanut butter tastes good. at least he's still entertaining, though.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure a constitutional amendment is needed. The most important SC decision with regard to birthright citizenship that I know of is Won Kim Ark v United States which talks about children of people here legally.
 
Gaius46 said:
I'm not so sure a constitutional amendment is needed. The most important SC decision with regard to birthright citizenship that I know of is Won Kim Ark v United States which talks about children of people here legally.
Click to expand...


yeah, an amendment would be needed to change that. unlike some of the other amendments, this one is very clear in its wording.
 
Really hard to believe how stupid people are here at DP. The 14A clearly says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and yet the fools here don't see it.
 

I read the "and" as connecting the phrases "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Both premises must be true. Since, afaik the SC hasn't weighed in on whether "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is true for illegals a federal law narrowing birthright citizenship may be all that's needed.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, I bolded the relevant part. SCOTUS could easily interpret that to be that the mother has to be a citizen for it to apply.
Click to expand...
Non-citizens in our country are not subject to our jurisdiction?
Non-citizens're free to do as they please and face no legal ramifications because they're not in our jurisdiction?
 
Helix said:
yeah, an amendment would be needed to change that. unlike some of the other amendments, this one is very clear in its wording.
Click to expand...

I believe that yours is the correct interpretation especially since "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to children of legal residents who are citizens of other countries and since we allow dual citizenship. But the SC has never said one way or the other.
 
Helix said:
yeah, an amendment would be needed to change that. unlike some of the other amendments, this one is very clear in its wording.
Click to expand...

Are you blind??? Can't you see the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?? What is wrong with people here.?
 
TextDriversKill said:
Are you blind??? Can't you see the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?? What is wrong with people here.?
Click to expand...

it flat out says if you're born here, you're a citizen. amend it, or deal with it.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, I bolded the relevant part. SCOTUS could easily interpret that to be that the mother has to be a citizen for it to apply.
Click to expand...

Why mother? Why not father?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Non-citizens in our country are not subject to our jurisdiction?
Non-citizens're free to do as they please and face no legal ramifications because they're not in our jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

HAHAHA. You don't know what jurisdiction means in this case. Of course illegal invaders are not free to break our laws and the FF knew that. By jurisdiction they meant - not a citizen of another country. If your mother is an illegal mexican, then you inherited her nationality and are a subject of mexico. THINK
 



I can read just fine, Can you? Trump isn't going to be President of the USA and the 14th Amendment isn't going away.

Deal with it.

Have a nice millisecond.
 
TextDriversKill said:
Really hard to believe how stupid people are here at DP. The 14A clearly says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and yet the fools here don't see it.
Click to expand...

Huh? Anyone on American soil, legal or illegal is subject to American jurisdiction, local, state and national.
 
shrubnose said:
I can read just fine, Can you? Trump isn't going to be President of the USA and the 14th Amendment isn't going away.

Deal with it
Click to expand...

Even if Trump won, it is HIGHLY unlikely the 14th would change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…