Latest Trump Lie: The U. S. is only country with Birthright Citizenship; said to Meet the Press

[uihawk82]

What a ****ing idiot. And he is planning to erase 150 years of the 14th amendment with an exec order. But with this Supreme Court who knows even though the constitution says there is only one way to change the constitution.

But most every country in S America and many in Europe have birthright citizenship. His little scary lies dont fool anyone.

 

[Moral]

I think his lies fool heaps of folk.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

What a ****ing idiot. And he is planning to erase 150 years of the 14th amendment with an exec order. But with this Supreme Court who knows even though the constitution says there is only one way to change the constitution.

But most every country in S America and many in Europe have birthright citizenship. His little scary lies dont fool anyone.

Why you watching FOX, idiot? No country in Europe has “unrestricted” anchor babyism like we do, but party on, dude!

 

[Mountain Man Hawk]

I’ve done like 10 seconds of research but ChatGPT says most countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship and most countries in Europe and Asia do not.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

I’ve done like 10 seconds of research but ChatGPT says most countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship and most countries in Europe and Asia do not.

Ya, brokeass countries no one wants to live in….

 

[mnole03]

Ya, brokeass countries no one wants to live in….

They were good enough for your friends when they needed to leave Germany in a hurry.

 

[Huey Grey]

Lies are what win him the White House. People like being lied to.

 

[joelbc1]

Same Trump, only the year is different. Same old tired old bullshit…just a different day. He’s just a little heavier in the butt and fatter around the jowls. Maybe a little “orangier”too.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

Same Trump, only the year is different. Same old tired old bullshit…just a different day. He’s just a little heavier in the butt and fatter around the jowls. Maybe a little “orangier”too.

Glass houses, Prince Beautiful?! 🤡😂🤡😂🥩

 

[Gus is dead]

Well he can always take the Biden approach and issue the executive order and then implement it knowing the the SCOTUS will take time to reverse it.

I do think there is a legitimate question as to what the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction of' means. Or should neam. It has been tested historically of course in regard to native americans etc...

Congress could certainly clarify that language.

I honestly dont think it makes sense for us, in todays climate with travel being much more available than the founders could have imagined, to grant citizenship just because someone was born on US soil to parents that arent US citizens. A child born to at least one parent of US citizenship? Sure no problem of course.

I dont think that Trump has the ability via executive order, to change this. He should ask congress to do their job if this is something he wants to move forward with.

 

[win1forthe]

If Melania became a citizen in July, 2006 and Barron was born in March, 2006, does that mean Barron will leave?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I’ve done like 10 seconds of research but ChatGPT says most countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship and most countries in Europe and Asia do not.

Yes, almost universal in the western hemisphere for a reason...the people writing their constitutions were immigrants.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

What a ****ing idiot. And he is planning to erase 150 years of the 14th amendment with an exec order. But with this Supreme Court who knows even though the constitution says there is only one way to change the constitution.

I think (hope) that even this SCOTUS would find it a bridge too far to throw the Constitution out the window for Trump.

 

[lucas80]

I’ve done like 10 seconds of research but ChatGPT says most countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship and most countries in Europe and Asia do not.

CSB, on of my best friends is a pharmaceutical researcher in Canada. He married a French woman teaching at his college and had a kid. Triple citizenship for the kid after he filled out a little paperwork

 

[lucas80]

If Melania became a citizen in July, 2006 and Barron was born in March, 2006, does that mean Barron will leave?

That's different. Barron is white.

 

[joelbc1]

That's different. Barron is white.

Nice.

 

[uihawk82]

Why you watching FOX, idiot? No country in Europe has “unrestricted” anchor babyism like we do, but party on, dude!

Do you understand the title of this thread. Trump lies, he is a liar, he is a pathological liar lying tens of thousands of times over the past 8 years.

He lied when he said the US is the only birthright nation. He may know that isnt true but the fact either way is that he lies which is just one of his huge character flaws.

Now when something really important comes up are you going to believe what he says? You shouldnt. And I am not going to call you names because I dont even know you. But you cant even understand the title of the thread. Wow

You can call me an idiot but I know I am not one and I am very smart.

 

[B1GDeal]

Well he can always take the Biden approach and issue the executive order and then implement it knowing the the SCOTUS will take time to reverse it.

I do think there is a legitimate question as to what the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction of' means. Or should neam. It has been tested historically of course in regard to native americans etc...

Congress could certainly clarify that language.

I honestly dont think it makes sense for us, in todays climate with travel being much more available than the founders could have imagined, to grant citizenship just because someone was born on US soil to parents that arent US citizens. A child born to at least one parent of US citizenship? Sure no problem of course.

I dont think that Trump has the ability via executive order, to change this. He should ask congress to do their job if this is something he wants to move forward with.

So not an originalist? Interesting how we want to evolve the views of the founders here but not when it comes to the “well regulated militia.” I’m good with both of these being changed FTR. As with anything in life you have to evolve.

 

[franklinman]

I see the liar in chief hasn't changed a bit, same ole idiot. Get ready for many more.

 

[95Hawk]

I think (hope) that even this SCOTUS would find it a bridge too far to throw the Constitution out the window for Trump.

Alito loves himself some history. I can easily see him sliding into the minds of an 1865 legislator to suggest that birthright citizenship only extended to the newly freed slaves. And even saying that would cause Alito distaste but provide ground that the “all others” born here since then are invalid.

 

[Rifler]

You can call me an idiot but I know I am not one and I am very smart.

 

[Scruddy]

Biden cure cancer yet? What an idiot.

 

[hexumhawk]

The anchor baby situation is unique to the US and is not part of the 14th. It has been derived from an EO that is only used here. The 14th language makes it very hard to agree about the anchor system but should be clarified.

 

[IIowaFarmBoy]

Have you considered he is just stupid with frontal lobe dementia? Where is Joe?

 

[95Hawk]

The anchor baby situation is unique to the US and is not part of the 14th. It has been derived from an EO that is only used here. The 14th language makes it very hard to agree about the anchor system but should be clarified.

Birthright citizenship is not unique to the U.S. There are at least 35 countries that have unrestricted birthright citizenship.

And it’s absolutely part of the 14th amendment and absolutely not derived from an EO. It’s been affirmed in United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyer v. Doe (1982)

 

[Rifler]

This would ultimately require a constitutional amendment,.. a near impossibility,... Trump might begin the conversation, but I seriously doubt that he expends any appreciable political capital on this issue...

 

[hexumhawk]

Birthright citizenship is not unique to the U.S. There are at least 35 countries that have unrestricted birthright citizenship.

And it’s absolutely part of the 14th amendment and absolutely not derived from an EO. It’s been affirmed in United States vs Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyer v. Doe (1982)

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

 

[95Hawk]

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

If Plyer v. Doe made clear that children who were not legally admitted to the U.S. fell under the jurisdiction of the states in which they reside, I think it’s gonna be a stretch to say that those who have birthright citizenship aren’t afforded the same

But this SCOTUS will tie itself up in knots to unwind that.

Now: are you willing to admit the your claim that anchor baby status in the U.S. was derived from an executive order is complete bunk? Or that the U.S. is “unique” with affording that right?

 

[hexumhawk]

If Plyer v. Doe made clear that children who were not legally admitted to the U.S. fell under the jurisdiction of the states in which they reside, I think it’s gonna be a stretch to say that those who have birthright citizenship aren’t afforded the same

But this SCOTUS will tie itself up in knots to unwind that.

Now: are you willing to admit the your claim that anchor baby status in the U.S. was derived from an executive order is complete bunk? Or that the U.S. is “unique” with affording that right?

No because it isn't.

 

[95Hawk]

No because it isn't.

Okay. I can see that you’re uninformed and desiring to make arguments based on your feelings.

Let me know where Section 1 is unclear to you.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

 

[lucas80]

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 well regulated militia...

 

[95Hawk]

A well regulated militia...

The part he highlighted has been debated and was clearly defined upon the drafting of the amendment. Senate debate at the time landed on an interpretation of “subject to the jurisdiction” that meant people under U.S. sovereign authority. That included everyone within a U.S. territory, excluding only foreign diplomats, foreign armies, and native tribes.

He’s picking nits at this point. It’s been debated and affirmed a number of times.

 

[BelemNole]

My brother had to renounce his greek citizenship when he was 18. He gained it by being born while we were stationed there.