[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles

Title: Trump May Issue Exec Order Ending Citizenship For Babies Of Illegal Immigrants: Calls It ‘Frankly Ridiculous’
Source: DailyWire
URL Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/5090 ... nding-citizenship-hank-berrien
Published: Aug 22, 2019
Author: Hank Berrien
Post Date: 2019-08-22 11:07:24 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 2927
Comments: 29

On Wednesday, President Trump stated that he is thinking of issuing an executive order that would prevent the children born on American soil to illegal immigrants from gaining automatic American citizenship, calling so-called “birthright citizenship” “frankly ridiculous.”

Trump told reporters, “Birthright citizenship — where you have a baby in our land, walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations — the baby is now a U.S. citizen. We’re looking at it very, very seriously.” When he was apprised that one reporter knew of Trump’s intent to go forward with an executive order, which he had mentioned in 2018, he responded, ‘‘I don’t know how you found that out, but that’s very good. We’re looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. It’s frankly ridiculous.”

In October 2018, speaking to Axios, Trump stated, “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end.” When interviewer Jonathan Swan asked whether he had “talked about it with counsel,” Trump answered, “Yeah, I have.” He was then asked where in the process he was, prompting Trump to reply, “It’s in the process; it will happen … an executive order, that’s what you’re talking about … I didn’t think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. Jonathan, I’m impressed.”

In 2010, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that roughly 8% of children born in the United States were born to illegal immigrants, a total of 340,000 babies.

In 1993, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), introduced the ‘‘Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993.” As even left-leaning Politifact admitted, “Section 1001, entitled ‘Basis of Citizenship Clarified,’ said, in effect, that children born in United States to parents who are illegal immigrants would not become U.S. citizens. And just in case there was any confusion about the matter, a press release that Reid’s office issued a day later states that the bill ‘clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen.’ Five years later, Reid switched his position, saying he was “embarrassed that I made such a proposal.”

Defenders of birthright citizenship claim that the 14th Amendment supports their position. The Amendment states, “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.”

Vice President Mike Pence has differed, saying in 2018, “We all cherish the language of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether the language of the 14th Amendment — ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ — applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally.”


Poster Comment:

Trump is still charging hard on his biggest single issue as a pol. He hasn't settled for the status quo at all. I like that.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know
what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)

The Repugant and demoncrap elites will fight this with everything they have.

So just another day in America!

14th was made for Slaves and should be left at that. No other nation upon this earth does such a thing! We are still paying the price for slavery! Will it ever end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Justified  posted on  2019-08-22   12:57:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Justified, Tooconservative (#2)

14th was made for Slaves and should be left at that.

Wrong, as clearly and explicitly demonstrated the by contemporary congressional debate on the amendment.

No other nation upon this earth does such a thing!

Wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Jus soli, meaning "right of the soil", commonly referred to as birthright citizenship in the United States, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.

Jus soli was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis, which derives from the Roman law that influenced the civil-law systems of continental Europe. Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas, but it is rare elsewhere. Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.

Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants.

Jus soli in many cases helps prevent statelessness. Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are obligated to grant nationality to persons born in their territory who would otherwise become stateless persons. The American Convention on Human Rights similarly provides that "Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality."

National laws

Lex soli is a law used in practice to regulate who and under what circumstances an individual can assert the right of jus soli. Most states provide a specific lex soli—in application of the respective jus soli—and it is the most common means of acquiring nationality. However, a frequent exception to lex soli is imposed when a child is born to a parent in the diplomatic or consular service of another state on a mission to the state in question.

Unrestricted jus soli

  • Antigua and Barbuda: Guaranteed by the Constitution.
  • Argentina
  • Barbados: Guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Barbados Ministry of Labour & Immigration recently proposed ending automatic birthright citizenship.
  • Belize
  • Bolivia
  • Brazil (requires that the foreign parents are not working for their country's government in Brazil by the time the child is born).
  • Canada: Subsection 3(2) of the Act states that Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada is not granted to a child born in Canada if neither parent was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and either parent was a diplomat, in service to a diplomat, or employed by an international agency of equal status to a diplomat. However, if neither parents were diplomats, the nationality or immigration status of the parents do not matter. Some Conservative Party members wish to end birthright citizenship in Canada to the children of tourists and unauthorized immigrants.
  • Chad (The choice to take Chadian citizenship, or that of the parents is made at 18 years of age.)
  • Chile
  • Costa Rica (Jus sangui requires registration with the Costa Rican government before the age of twenty-five)
  • Dominica
  • Ecuador
  • El Salvador
  • Fiji
  • Grenada
  • Guatemala
  • Guyana
  • Honduras
  • Jamaica
  • Lesotho
  • Mexico
  • Nicaragua
  • Pakistan
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru (registration required at 18 years of age)
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Tanzania: Per the Tanzania Citizenship Act of 1995, "any child born within the borders of the United Republic of Tanzania, on or after Union Day, 26 April 1964, is granted citizenship of Tanzania, except for children of foreign diplomats."
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Tuvalu
  • United States: The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, provides: "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."[37] The concept of birthright citizenship applying to the child born of a foreign national in the country without proper credentials has never been formally litigated, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) allowed the government to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children only in the cases of children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory, and thus this decision is most often interpreted as barring the government from denying citizenship to a U.S.-born person based on the alienage of his or her parents.[38][39] (see United States nationality law).
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela

    nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-22   16:07:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    #8. To: nolu chan (#5)

    Just because the court turned activist doesn't make it right, in my book.

    14th amendment birth right was about slaves. It got perverted like most laws. We will just have to disagree on this.

    If we just keep allowing people to come here and claim they kicked out a baby on US soil the only way this ends is with America collapsing in to chaos. We will have 70% of the people uneducated unskilled living off the backs of the middle class causing it to collapse. US is about the middle class. Not the rich or the poor.

    Justified  posted on  2019-08-22   16:55:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    #13. To: Justified (#8)

    Just because the court turned activist doesn't make it right, in my book.

    The Court did not turn activist. The clear text of the 14th Amendment is obvious and undeniable, and the Court refused to adopt a meaning which is not there. THAT would be activist.

    14th amendment birth right was about slaves. It got perverted like most laws. We will just have to disagree on this.

    The 14th Amendment was not just about slaves. The debates made explicit references to Chinese, Gypsies, Irish, Germans and Europeans in general. The text does not say a mumbling word about slaves or make the slightest reference to slaves. In fact, slavery was abolished the the 13th 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.

    It refers to "all persons," not all black persons or all former slaves. There are only two set conditions, being born in the United States, and being born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    The Amendment did not change existing citizenship law at that time, but it did place it beyond the reach of the legislature.

    People born in the U.S. were considered U.S. citizens by virtue of their birth, even though born to European aliens. The children of said aliens did not get naturalized. If these children were not citizens at birth, much of today's citizens of European ancestry would be aliens because somewhere down in the family tree someone was the child of aliens who did not get naturalized. As the Supreme Court stated,

    To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.

    649 U.S. 694

    Jus soli came to the colonies and the United States via British common law. It has always been the law in the United States.

    If we just keep allowing people to come here and claim they kicked out a baby on US soil the only way this ends is with America collapsing in to chaos. We will have 70% of the people uneducated unskilled living off the backs of the middle class causing it to collapse. US is about the middle class. Not the rich or the poor.

    An amendment was adopted. As the 21st Amendment demonstrated, if the people so choose, they can repeal one amendment with another amendment.

    If President Trump can repeal the 14th Amendment with an executive order, can the next democrat president repeal the 2nd Amendment with an executive order?

    A pressing need is reform of immigration law and immigration law enforcement. There is no constitutional right which provides that an alien can import his or her family tree. Birthright citizenship only provides the rights of citizenship to the child. No constitutional provision provides that an illegal alien who punches out a kid on U.S. soil has a right to stay in the U.S.

    nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-22   20:14:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    #15. To: nolu chan (#13)

    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.

    I disagree. They are foreigners who are subjects of a foreign jurisdiction. The amendment wasn't to legalize invaders.

    The Supreme court will rule my way if they have any sense. Then we can do mass deportations of fake Americans.

    A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-22   20:25:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    #18. To: A K A Stone, Tooconservative, GrandIsland (#15)

    [A K A Stone #15] I disagree. They are foreigners who are subjects of a foreign jurisdiction. The amendment wasn't to legalize invaders.

    The plain text of the Amendment is clear and the assumed intent of legislators is irrelevant. That is the explicitly stated opinion of the Supreme Court.

    The Amendment did not change the existing law at the time it was adopted. "All persons" cannot be interpreted to exclude a class of persons deemed uundesirable at some later date.

    Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845):

    In expounding this law, the judgment of the court cannot, in any degree, be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself; and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject, and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

    "A Matter of Interpretation," Federal Courts and the Law, by Antonin Scalia, 1997. This book contains an essay by Antonin Scalia and responses to that essay by professors Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Laurence Tribe, and Gordon Wood. There is a final response by Antonin Scalia.

    To demonstrate the breadth of legal agreement on this point, I quote from Laurence Tribe and Antonin Scalia.

    Laurence Tribe, pp. 65-6

    Let me begin with my principal area of agreement with Justice Scalia. Like him, I believe that when we ask what a legal text means — what it requires of us, what it permits us to do, and what it forbids — we ought not to be inquiring (except perhaps very peripherally) into the ideas, intentions, or expectations subjectively held by whatever particular persons were, as a historical matter, involved in drafting, promulgating, or ratifying the text in question. To be sure, those matters, when reliably ascertainable, might shed some light on otherwise ambiguous or perplexing words or phrases - by pointing us, as readers, toward the linguistic frame of reference within which the people to whom those words or phrases were addressed would have "translated" and thus understood them. But such thoughts and beliefs can never substitute for what was in fact enacted as law. Like Justice Scalia, I never cease to be amazed by the arguments of judges, lawyers, or others who proceed as though legal texts were little more than interesting documentary evidence of what some lawgiver had in mind. And, like the justice, I find little to commend the proposition that anyone ought, in any circumstances I can imagine, to feel legally bound to obey another's mere wish or thought, or legally bound to act in accord with another's mere hope or fear.

    Antonin Scalia, responding to Dr. Tribe, p. 133

    He is correct that we both regard as irrelevant the intentions of the drafters....

    At page 30, Scalia quoted from Aldridge v. Williams, 44 U.S. 9, 24 (1845):

    In expounding this law, the judgment of the court cannot, in any degree, be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself; and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject, and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed.

    Beginning on page 30 Scalia writes:

    Extensive use of legislative history in this country dates only from about the 1940s. It was still being criticized by such respected justices as Frankfurter and Jackson as recently as the 1950s. Jackson, for example, wrote in one concurrence:

    I should concur in this result more readily if the Court could reach it by analysis of the statute instead of by psychoanalysis of Congress. When we decide from legislative history, including statements of witnesses at hearings, what Congress probably had in mind, we must put ourselves in the place of a majority of Congressmen and act according to the impression we think this history should have made on them. Never having been a Congressman, I am handicapped in that weird endeavor. That process seems to me not interpretation of a statute but creation of a statute.

    The Justice Jackson quote is taken from his concurring opinion in U.S. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 345 U.S. 295 (1953) at 319.

    nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-22   23:06:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    #22. To: nolu chan (#18)

    Also diplomats are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Since we have jurisdiction over the United States we decided to give them immunity. Your argument doesn't hold water.

    Also the Supreme court usurped its authority. I know you disagree. But that is ok with me.

    If Trump pushes this with an executive order that is a good thing. It cold force the court to rule the correct way on the 14th amendment. My way not yours.

    A K A Stone  posted on  2019-08-23   7:08:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    #23. To: A K A Stone (#22)

    [A K A Stone] Also diplomats are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Since we have jurisdiction over the United States we decided to give them immunity. Your argument doesn't hold water.

    No, your argument has a big leak in its bucket. We do not have jurisdiction over any accredited visiting diplomat. We do not grant immunity to each one, but by accredition assume the burden of foregoing any claim to jurisdiction, as a matter of law. It is covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

    Were the United States to proceed as you suggest, all visiting diplomats would be withdrawn by their home nation, and all U.S. diplomats around the world would be declared persona non grata and expelled.

    Article 6 provides:

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Any law in conflict with the Constitution yields to the Constitution. Treaties and Federal laws are equal, and in cases of conflict the one most recently adopted prevails. The Vienna Convention is a treaty and is the supreme law of the land. There is no conflicting provision of the Constitution, nor in any more recent Federal law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Diplomatic_Relations

    The treaty is an extensive document, containing 53 articles. The following is a basic overview of its key provisions.

    • Article 9. The host nation at any time and for any reason can declare a particular member of the diplomatic staff to be persona non grata. The sending state must recall this person within a reasonable period of time, or otherwise this person may lose their diplomatic immunity.
    • Article 22. The premises of a diplomatic mission, such as an embassy, are inviolable and must not be entered by the host country except by permission of the head of the mission. Furthermore, the host country must protect the mission from intrusion or damage. The host country must never search the premises, nor seize its documents or property. Article 30 extends this provision to the private residence of the diplomats.
    • Article 24 establishes that the archives and documents of a diplomatic mission are inviolable. The receiving country shall not seize or open such documents.
    • Article 27. The host country must permit and protect free communication between the diplomats of the mission and their home country. A diplomatic bag must never be opened even on suspicion of abuse. A diplomatic courier must never be arrested or detained.
    • Article 29. Diplomats must not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. They are immune from civil or criminal prosecution, though the sending country may waive this right under Article 32.
    • Article 31.1c Actions not covered by diplomatic immunity: professional activity outside diplomat's official functions.
    • Article 34 speaks about tax exemption of diplomatic agents while Article 36 establishes that diplomatic agents are exempted from custom duties.
    • Article 37. The family members of diplomats that are living in the host country enjoy most of the same protections as the diplomats themselves.

    [...]

    As of October 2018, there are 192 state parties to the convention including all UN member states except Palau, the Solomon Islands, and South Sudan. Included as state parties are the Holy See and State of Palestine, the two UN observer states. The Republic of China signed and ratified the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations on 18 April 1961 and 19 December 1969 respectively prior to the UN granting China's seat to The People's Republic of China. There are no states that have signed the treaty but have not ratified it.

    The text of the Treaty is here:

    http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

    nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-23   11:02:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    #24. To: nolu chan (#23) (Edited)

    Treaties were never intended to supercede the Constitution and its statutes.

    harvardlawreview.org/2014...mits-on-the-treaty-power/

    goldilucky  posted on  2019-08-23   14:59:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


    Replies to Comment # 24.

            There are no replies to Comment # 24.


    End Trace Mode for Comment # 24.

    TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

    [Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

    Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com