President Trump Considering Immigration Executive Order Removing Birthright Citizenship (“Anchor Babies”)…

“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.”

According to a widely repeated Axios interview with President Trump the administration is considering an executive order to eliminate the “Anchor Baby” interpretation within the 14th Amendment focused on “Birthright Citizenship.”

If the initial review of the intent is accurate, President Trump would sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil.

.

Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented immigrants, illegal aliens, or temporary (Visa) immigrants/visitors. The legal issues of birthright citizenship surrounding children born to non-legal parents inside the U.S. has never been decided by the Supreme Court.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Decepticons, Deep State, Election 2018, Illegal Aliens, Jeff Sessions, Legislation, media bias, President Trump, States, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

716 Responses to President Trump Considering Immigration Executive Order Removing Birthright Citizenship (“Anchor Babies”)…

  1. Firefly says:

    Here’s an interesting article- claiming scotus hasn’t ruled on the 1965 immigration act. At least PTrump will force a SCOTUS ruling. We have the best Supreme Court we probably could get – so pushing for a ruling now is a good move. Whatever decision SCOTUD makes will be the law – let’s hope a Gorsuch and Kavenaugh don’t let us down.

    Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
    “Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment.
    While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court.”

    https://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/misinterpreted.html

    Liked by 16 people

    • annieoakley says:

      Ted Kennedy started this entire fiasco. Then he became BBF with McCain.

      Liked by 11 people

    • MAGAbear says:

      And that’s what PDJT is doing here. Finally get a ruling from SCOTUS on this issue and (finally) reverse the insane current law. The sooner the better!

      Liked by 18 people

      • Firefly says:

        The fact that the uniparty avoided such a ruling for decades- and I don’t hear Ryan or any screaming for a scotus challege on PTrump EO statement is a good sign they know the SCOTUS ruling likely won’t be what they want. If so, that means the Dems nd GOP we’re in cahoots avoiding a SCOTUS ruling because they knew it violates the 14th.

        Liked by 10 people

      • ss006 says:

        Yes, that’s my take. Create the EO, get a challenge, force the SCOTUS to once and for all set a precedent for birthright citizenship where the parent(s) is/are illegals. The highly cited Wong case is quite different since his parents were here legally (although not citizens).

        The media continues to mislead the masses by claiming it’s clearly spelled out in the 14th Amendment. It takes about 5 minutes to find and start to understand the truth … amazing what some people are saying regarding this with absolutely no idea what they’re taking about.

        Liked by 13 people

        • This should not just address children of ILLEGALS. It should also address people in the USA legally (travel visa, student visa, work visa) but are actually CITIZENS of another country. I do not want these people to pop out a baby on US soil and have it become automatically a US CITIZEN. It is not just about illegals. It is about all of the foreigners gaming our stupid laws.

          Liked by 15 people

      • Red Tsunami! says:

        Which is similar to what PDJT did with DACA. Enforce, force Congress to act, force SC to rule. Unfortunately Congress did not act, Supreme Court did not rule…yet.

        Liked by 9 people

        • ss006 says:

          He forces issues. I like it. For years we’ve left these huge elephants in the room because everyone’s main goal was to get re-elected.

          Liked by 8 people

          • litlbit2 says:

            Agree, imho, the swamp, whatever, has adopted the definition of the 14th to be a employment apparatus without push back for profit. They Soros, Koch, Bloomberg should have made their invasion(s) pregnant women. Would have much more difficult. Still invasion is still invasion.

            If tent cities are built I pray they are built on the south side of the border! I feel the tents will become Mount Rushmore and never leave. Shots fired at illegal crossers will take moxie as I am sure the invaders do not believe that will happen.

            Needs to be if that is what it takes for the message to be delivered. Mexico has a real problem getting these people out of their country.

            Time go to the court for a ruling.

            Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          The Congress does not need to act. The Supremem Court already has submitted opinions on the question.

          We just have a Congress that has unconstitutionally passed laws ignoring the 14th Amendment. Kennedy started it.

          The President’s EO will probably only clarify the argument.

          Liked by 3 people

          • Red Tsunami! says:

            It is understood that DACA is unconstituional. PDJT used suspending DACA to force Congress to fix the immigration problem. When the court prevented PDJT from suspending DACA there was no urgency for Congress to act.

            DACA has gone to the SC. I do not believe the court has scheduled it yet.

            BTW, the “increased travel ban” EO will be tied up in the courts. Maybe the SC will make it a priority.

            Liked by 1 person

        • Farmkid says:

          Did SC accept the case or pass it back to the lower court.

          Like

      • Janice says:

        Our Magnificent Lion waited till ne had the court! The commies sent the invasion over and now will reap what they sow. Dear God hear our prayers for Presidents Trumps safety. Again we thank you father for our David.

        Liked by 2 people

    • osugagal says:

      I very much want to see birthright citizen stopped, but there was a case before the Supreme Court in the 1890’s about a child born to Chinese parents (subjects of the Chinese emperor) who resided and worked in the US. Court ruled that the child was a US citizen under the 14th amendment. The parents had arrived legally and were living in the US legally so that was different. And it seems that English common law operates this way as well. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but I think the court would rule that anchor babies are citizens. I am very glad President Trump is raising the issue. The worse that happens is we end up with what we are doing now and the best is that the practice stops.

      Liked by 1 person

      • osugagal says:

        After posting I refreshed and saw all the comments about the Chinese case. Sorry. I was interrupted while I was writing my original post and so there was a fair amount of time between when I read all the previous comments and when I actually posted.

        Liked by 3 people

    • TexasDude says:

      For what it’s worth, it will be law now, but subject to revision or outright replacement by other cases.

      Like

    • Titus says:

      Do not forget the thousands from China having babies in US through a Tourist visa. Numerous Chinese companies touting tourism..ahem birth in US makes dual citizens. Control of narrative through voting, positions of authority, and immigration. On the same subject, all Senators/Congress people with dual passports should sign a loyalty doc stating allegiance to US and disavowing their foreign dual/birth country.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. @ChicagoBri says:

    I live in the physical center of Chicago, an area that has always been a portal into America for immigrants. In the current day, the area is majority Mexican/Mexican-American, with the Chinese growing by leaps and bounds, as we are close to Chicago’s Chinatown, which is now too small to contain the Chinese population. It is not problem free, and too many don’t speak English and have no intention of learning.

    However, it is not all negatives. Most of the Mexicans I know are wonderful people. The Chinese work hard and keep up their homes, even if they don’t speak English. The children they have here are bilingual, and their children will likely only speak English.

    I am not arguing against revisiting “birthright” citizenship, and I’m not pro- caravan – to the contrary. What I am saying is that immigration isn’t all negative, or even a net negative. Don’t forego the Christian rule to love your neighbor as yourself. In the story of the Good Samaritan, the issue of who is our neighbor gets answered.

    We can protect and defend our nation while adhering to Christ. Let’s strive to do both.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lisabrqwc says:

      Immigrants vs illegal invaders. Apples and oranges.

      Liked by 14 people

    • annieoakley says:

      Chibri They must assimilate and must desire to assimilate. They must not feel entitled to impose their cultures on us.

      Liked by 10 people

      • mimbler says:

        Yes, too many people fail to recognize that even legal immigration will sink this country if we continue to import people from countries that do not share our values.

        They will eventually have the numbers to vote in the kind of people that ruined the countries they are coming from.

        Republicans are doing better than ever by getting about 40 percent of legal Hispanic votes. That means 60 percent of them are voting for socialists. Because that is the culture they come from.

        And I’m only using Hispanics because that is a statistic I’m familiar with. It doesn’t say a thing about the individual that lives next door, but it tells you what influence the group has on our politics. I’m sure we get far fewer of the votes of Mideastern immigrants for another example.

        The schools teach immigrants to retain their values and culture and not to assimilate.

        Yes, our immediate focus needs to be on illegal immigration, but down the road we should be looking at why it is so hard for Europeans to be legal immigrants here.

        Liked by 6 people

        • Rhoda R says:

          And to reinforce the idea of assimilation into the US ethos as well. The dems have been Balkinizing the US for decades now – we used to be a melting pot but that works against identity politics.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Jan says:

          70% of the legal immigrants coming to America are coming through chain migration–a family member is already here legally, and they sponsor 28 family members. They get a little bit of screening, but they’re not totally vetted, may be uneducated, no job skills, etc. That’s why we need to limit chain migration to just very immediate family members, and we need legal immigration based on a merit system. Except for some work visa overstays (their visa expires but they remain here), most illegals have limited educations and limited work skills. This is why their contribution to our economy is about $16 billion/yr., but taxpayers are paying $163 billion/yr. or more to take care of all of them (& that doesn’t include what the whole deportation system costs or incarcerated illegals.). So even our legal immigration laws are abused.

          Liked by 4 people

    • Sylvia Avery says:

      Personally, I’m of the opinion that PDJT spoke a profound truth when he suggested we shut down all immigration–ALL immigration legal or otherwise–until we figure out what the heck is going on.

      We need to just stop it. And then look at what is going on and why, and then make a considered, thoughtful, policy for going forward that is in the best interests of America. The entire immigration system is one big mess as it stands, and I’m frankly unconvinced that we need to let in lots more people.

      We’re pretty crowded now and resources like water and getting stretched thin in areas. We need to take a hard look and be severely practical about what makes sense for us for our future.

      Liked by 21 people

      • mugzey302 says:

        And, we have the right to be SELECTIVE. They can emigrate to Peru, etc. The welfare lure is their priority, plain and simple.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Yes. I’ve wanted to see ALL immigration shut down forever, and for 50 years minimum which MIGHT be enough time to restore the Republic and our American CULTURE.

        Then again, I also want to see the Number One issue where UniParty and Americans with common sense would be miles apart corrected, and that is without a doubt the never spoken of in negative terms feral reserve and its strong-arming extortion crew being eradicated.

        Frankly, America can never be Great Again, with the internation bankster cartel left in place. Between it and the council on foreign relations we, nor or phake @$$ “representatives” have any real say in our own “government”. Not where economic concerns are, nor wars apparently. ALL wars are bankster wars.

        Liked by 4 people

      • mimbler says:

        That was done from the 1930’s to the early 1960’s. It was done because we had too many immigrants that were not assimilating. The idea was give them time to do that, then we could afford to bring more in.

        Coincidence or not that time period brought increasing success to the country.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Sylvia-right the hell on!

        Liked by 1 person

    • wrd9 says:

      A lot of immigrants from corrupt countries engage in illegal activities like tax evasion and welfare fraud. If they run a business, are they carrying insurance, hiring illegals, paying payroll taxes? Who’s going to catch them? Here’s a New Yorker article about Abacus Bank in NYC where it illustrates that tax evasion in the Chinese community is the norm.

      https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/the-accused-jiayang-fan

      The Boston Globe did an article about Brazilians in Massachusetts and 40% of Brazilian legals didn’t pay taxes and 60% of Brazilian illegals didn’t pay taxes.

      They may seem like nice people but I certainly don’t trust them to adhere to US laws.

      Liked by 5 people

      • mugzey302 says:

        George Soro is a case in point. And some jackass gave him citizenship!

        Liked by 4 people

      • California Joe says:

        Worker’s Compensation fraud is rampant among Hispanic contractors from Florida to California. They either don’t have Worker’s Compensation or substantially underreport the number of workers on the payroll. State labor departments are mostly incompetent and unable to deal with the fraud which puts legitimate contractors out of business and encourages widespread income tax fraud by the Hispanic workers employed.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Janice says:

        Why should American culture be subverted to invaders? It just galls me to see their home countries flag on rooftops in this country.

        Liked by 2 people

    • booger71 says:

      They are not our “neighbors” unless they invade our country illegally. I believe the Lord believed in walls, and in the sovereignty of nations, and some of us have had different outcomes when we lived near illegal populations.

      Liked by 1 person

    • mugzey302 says:

      The love your neighbor is addressed to The CHURCH, not the govt. And it is the CHURCH that should give to the poor, not the govt. The church and activist groups have foisted this onto the taxpayer/govt long enough, while the church builds mammoth churches and buysprivate jets, and the activists hire more activists. The taxpayers/govt are not required to fulfill this teaching/admonition.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Legal, thoughtful immigration is okay. But it should never be allowed if it harms American CITIZENS. They take priority. I know tons of legal immigrants and I would happily trade them for every pussy-hat wearing, America hating liberal citizen but that is not how the system works. The world is filled with wonderful, hard-working people but we cannot allow them to just swarm our country and harm the working and middle class AMERICANS. As a Christian you should know that there are a lot of really nice people who are not going to make it into Heaven for eternity. Even God has standards of who can and cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

      Liked by 4 people

    • dayallaxeded says:

      Yeah, and how’s that alien explosion working out for the great, great, great grand children of the slaves who were actually guaranteed citizenship by 14thA? They’ve gotten the Chiraq shaft. Ask Kanye.

      Liked by 6 people

    • linda4298 says:

      Then they should have come in the right way, so this is a slap in the face to people who have waited for years to come here, they are wonderful people too.

      Liked by 1 person

    • You already posted this comment awhile back. Why do you keep posting it?

      Like

    • listingstarboard says:

      Why can’t they stay in their native country and be hardworking,wonderful people who keep up their homes?

      Liked by 1 person

    • formerdem says:

      Yes, I think the Democrats like to keep the illegal immigrants on edge so they will vote Democratic and furthermore I think they made the Dreamers formally list themselves so they would be blackmailable. The matter needs to be settled bc the Donkeys, not the Republicans, are terrifying and using illegal immigrants. Remember when Trump offered to legalize the Dreamers (helping them OUT of the blackmail trap Obama put them in) but the Democrats showed no interest bc it included the wall? All the Democrats want is power and they have no concern for the pain they cause.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. MB224 says:

    Paul Ryan knows damn well it’s Congress’ fault that this anchor baby nonsense is happening. It should’ve been ruled against by SCOTUS but for whatever reason it hasn’t been. POTUS has just as much authority as Congress or SCOTUS on the status of illegal aliens in this country.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Firefly says:

      America can never be united unless we are a nation of laws. The politicians like having ambiguous laws/interpretations – So they can play word games. This is fundamentally causing friction and instability. Once the SCOTUS rules the 14 amendment word games are over. Any Legislation passed without a fundamental scotus ruling will only add more conflicts and poltcal word games tearing this country apart.

      Liked by 2 people

    • not2worryluv says:

      Yes – all of a sudden Paul Ryan pops out of nowhere! Haven’t heard him at all this election cycle.

      Probably got some high paying job lined up that will advocate for open border policies to supply all his donors with cheap labor.

      Follow the money!

      Liked by 4 people

  4. thinkwell says:

    The operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the 14th Amendment can be known from the records of its authors. Both senator Trumbull and senator Howard provide the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

    The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

    The 14th Amendment was intended to keep democrat states from denying citizenship to the children of former slaves who otherwise would have been stateless. It was not intended to grant citizenship to the babies of alien invaders, tourists and other temporary visitors.

    Liked by 10 people

    • ss006 says:

      It was also worded that way to prevent Native Americans from getting citizenship. A big hot button at the time.

      Liked by 3 people

      • mimbler says:

        I’m not arguing against that, because I’ve read it elsewhere, but do you recall how they worded it to keep Indians from getting citizenship? Sounds awkward.

        Like

        • Monticello says:

          The complete jurisdiction differentiated the native Americans. Reservations are under the jurisdiction of the tribe and even the U.S. Marshall or FBI has to have the concurrence of the tribe. This is only my best understanding and I am not a lawyer or an expert on this matter.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Jonesy says:

      My husband and I were taught this in the 70’s. I grew up in Atlanta and he grew up in the Midwest. We also learned then an American citizen couldn’t hold 2 passports because of this “allegiance/jurisdiction.” Therefore, one or the anchor baby needs to decide is it American or the country they came from because it can’t be both. The challenge is when was it allowed for Americans to have dual citizenships……

      Liked by 1 person

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    I thought the SCOTUS had visited the 14th with respect to babies of non-citizens and illegals some time back. Anyone know how to find all decisions they made on the 14th (only).

    Like

    • Johnny says:

      Internet search works real good.

      Like

      • Jonesy says:

        I wrote it for people to ponder bc this supports our feckless Congress and what the left leaning State Dept and Congress ignore.The State Dept ignores what it means to be subject to jurisdiction, encourages naturalize citizens to lie under oath while swearing their allegiance to the US, and gives foreign diplomat’s children’s US passports, illegally,if born here.

        If we didn’t allow dual citizenship(currently we allow the other countries law to determine if a naturalized US citizen can keep their home countries passport).

        If we removed Dual Citizenship,it would also discourage these people seeking birth right citizenship bc they(parents and child) wouldn’t be traveling so easily between these countries as they do now or seek govt service from both countries to game the system!

        This would also be consistent and support the argument “being subject to the complete jurisdiction intended.” This needs to apply and be consistent to all of these govt immigration laws.

        “ It would be nice if the U.S. Congress had, at some point, simply spelled out within the Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) that dual citizenship is allowed[or not allowed] by the United States. It hasn’t done so. In fact, you won’t find any formal or official recognition of dual citizenship as an immigration status.
        What’s more, the oath of allegiance that immigrants must take in order to become naturalized citizens declares that the immigrant will:
        renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”

        If the Dems are so frighten of the Russians influencing the elections why are Russians allowed to be Dual and have US passports. If the Reps are so scared of Iranians, why do US naturalized citizens who came from Iran, allowed to have Dual passports?

        Just apply the law consistently and write it now so there is no gray areas throughout the immigration laws for the State Dept to do “Interpretive Dancing” that always slides left to manipulate voters and new citizens.

        Like

  6. thinkwell says:

    Instead of calling illegal alien babies “birthright citizens” we should call them “cuckold citizens” because they are dropped by a malevolent invader into our “nest” and kill and steal from the nest’s natural inhabitants.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. CNN_sucks says:

    Sure why not. Progressives want us to believe that constitution is a living document. So change it.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. notunderwhelmed says:

    Go for it, Donald! This is the most loosely defined interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Yes, yes, yes… I love this president ! 💋💋💋💋👌

    Liked by 1 person

  9. MAGAbear says:

    So if it’s wrong to deny birthright citizenship here in the USA and virtually all other contries but the USA deny birthright citizenship, that would mean virtually all other countries are bad. So no more praising socialist countries by the left! Of course, that’s if one applied logic to leftist thinking.

    Like

  10. It’s a terrible thing, people using their babies as baited hooks, or to offer their young children for instant cash, greedily ignoring the child’s path of abuse and suffering, it is a no wonder they can’t fave themselves and hate us when they get into the USA. But it is not worse to end the heart beat of a helpless being, disregard the dignity of two, and isn’t life denying selfishness worthy of a deeper scorn?

    Like

  11. M. Mueller says:

    Paul Ryan – bought and paid for! What a piece of garbage.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. booger71 says:

    Liz on FBN is an idiot…Greg Jarett tried to straighten he out…but on this..she just feels sorry for those babies born here by illegal moms

    Like

  13. Johnny says:

    Dang the Demoncrats are in quite the pickle. If the communists do not get there way in the election, they resort to violence which gets them dead. If the Greatest President in modern times writes an EO directing agencies to stop Anchor Baby Citizenship, which he can do, they become suicidal. Either way that is a win, win in my book.

    I watch in awe of our President everyday.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Lactantius says:

    STANDING: The SCOTUS demands “standing” before it hears a case.

    The plaintiff (the baby) must have suffered an injury that is actual.

    The Supreme Court has shied away from “giving standing” to a fetus. An aborted fetus is just a dead baby killed by others who undertook to kill it. That is a kettle of worms that everybody avoids.

    What “standing” does the baby of foreign citizens have to be a US citizen? Is the infant a “de facto” citizen or is the baby a “de jure” citizen or can the Constitution be applied at all.

    Some justices of the Supreme Court might take the position that the unclear wording of the 14th Amendment to vote to hear a case concerning anchor babies. But they might be very leery of opening the door to future argument concerning standing for a killed fetus. The point being, if the does not accept the case on the basis of standing, it is signaling that Congress needs to resolve the issue by legislation.

    It is highly likely, that the five words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” will be the foundation of any case submitted.

    Most likely, President Donald J. Trump can issue an executive order declaring that the children of non-citizens born in the United States are not automatically citizens of the United States. That informs the executive departments concerning how to proceed. Most likely, Congress will duck the issue out of pure establishment cowardice which means a future president can rescind the order and so forth.

    A strict reading of the 14th Amendment reveals that the wording is too ambiguous to support the interpretation that is establishes automatic citizenship to those born on US soil (jus soli) without exception.

    The Progressives worked mighty hard to stack the SCOTUS with Constitution emanation and penumbra readers, but they have been snookered. Now let them try their Cloward-Piven rule-of-law disruption by other means. There is a lot of butt hurt in Progressive land these days.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Johnny says:

      The SCOTUS can bring a case up without standing anytime it likes

      Like

      • Johnny says:

        That came out wrong so excuse me please. I meant to say the SCOTUS can take a case from a Federal Court anytime they feel like it.

        Like

        • Lactantius says:

          It really, really came out wrong. Standing is the foundational requirement for ALL SCOTUS cases. The SCOTUS might take a lower court ruling on the basis that the lower court fouled up on the standing of one of the parties. But they would more likely overturn the case on the base that it did was tried without standing.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Johnny says:

            So they can not make a ruling, for clarification on any grounds unless someone brings it up that has been injured, or as you say standing?

            Like

            • Lactantius says:

              “Standing” is a legal term. Look it up. The SCOTUS does not shop around to “clarify” things. An actual case involving a “wrong” has to be adjudicated in lower courts by people who meet the “standing” requirements. Then the case has to be appealed through the appeals court and finally receive a “writ of certiorari” which orders the lower court to deliver its record in a case so that SCOTUS may review it. The case is NOT retried. The two sides argue their legal reasoning before SCOTUS. Then each SCOTUS justice studies the arguments, researches the case law and comes to his/her own opinion. Finally, the 9 Justices vote on which way the decision should down. Each justice is permitted to write why he/she agrees or disagrees with the SCOTUS decision. 5-4 decisions are the weakest.

              Liked by 1 person

        • booger71 says:

          And can overturn an injunction from a federal court at any time…like this EO will surely get (injunction) within minutes after President Trump signs it.

          Like

          • Firefly says:

            I think a PTrump EO willl just reiterate everyone following the constitution 14 amendment and clarify the ambiguity. John Turley pointed out on Fox News the SCOTUS hasn’t ruled on the 14 th amendment interpretations. The 1965 immigration act using the anchor language has no been challenged either. Hopefully PTrump EO will Force a SCOTUS ruling. Lindsey Graham is saying legislation is needed. We need a SCOTUS ruling – not more legislative maneuvering avoiding such a ruling – which o far has been voided for 150 years, and decades after the 1965 immmigration act.

            Liked by 1 person

  15. Linda says:

    Lindsey Graham to Introduce Legislation to End Birthright Citizenship
    https://thepoliticalinsider.com/lindsey-graham-birthright-citizenship/

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Boots says:

    Immigration, legal and illegal, and birthright citizenship are trigger subjects. Both sides have immovable positions on the subjects.

    Dem’s use immigration to appeal to naive voter’s emotions. The Dem’s propaganda arm, the Media, shows the face of immigration as women and babies “fleeing” something. They never show the military aged males with angry faces giving the finger to the photographer. Even some, perhaps quite a few fence sitter type Repub voters fall for the emotional ploy.

    For these reasons I fear PDJT’s announcement will serve to increase Dem voter turnout Nov 6. Can’t understand why he’d make this announcement before Nov 6.

    On one hand, the announcement *might* bring more Rep votes. On the other hand, it seems *more likely* that it’d trigger the already hysterical libs to work harder to get lib voters to the polls.

    REALLY wish our President hadn’t said a thing about this at *this* time; and had waited until after Nov 6 and after he’d secured *some* sense of commitment to his plan by Congress critters.

    The demon media will be all over this. We don’t need to give them any more ammo to expend on those Americans gullible enough to fall for the media/Dem’s emotional ploy on immigration.

    Sigh…..

    Like

  17. I want folks too be AWARE of this before ya’ll get excited..

    *****In 1898 the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, ruled that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.******
    http://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/fourteenth_amendment_citizenship.php

    (Bottom of Page)..

    Like

  18. Publius2016 says:

    The 14th has many problems for interpretation in today’s modern times! Common sense tells you that giving Citizenship and all the benefits therein when you can travel from one end of the world to the other within a day makes Zero Sense! Must change it: Guess what Congress can in two seconds: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

    Liked by 1 person

  19. KnowSERENoFear says:

    Wouldn’t count on help from SCOTUS.

    Whether liberal or conservative, the difference in judges is about 7% (see agreement in judgements between Kavanaugh and Garland as mentioned during confirmation Kavanaugh’s hearing – specifically questioning by Senator Cruz).

    You may all think there’s a difference between judges, but in the end, and with the “caliber” of judges “worthy” of SCOTUS nomination, they all attend one of two schools, socialize in the same circles, acquiesce to the same precedences, and a ALL subscribe to the incorporation doctrine.

    The incorporation doctrine comes via the 14th Amendment. Naturalization questions aren’ the only unintended consequences of 14A. 14A also has been bastardized in the last 70 years by the SCOTUS to read that federal courts and law OVERRULE State law. And since current US law subscribes to legal positivism, OUR JUSTICE system has been replaced with a LEGAL system. We no longer have a Judicial branch – we have a legal branch that cares more about precedent and maintaining power than interpreting and adhering to the law of the land – the Constitution. SCOTUS for years has demonstrated this by getting into the “social justice” game…a game they “constitutionally” must stay out of. Social justice battles belong to the States, NOT the federal government.

    Example: Roe v Wade. This should have be a State decision. BUT because SCOTUS set precedent that 14A incorporated the States under federal law (incorporation doctrine), they ruled on RvW and all States have to follow it….despite CLEAR verbiage in 10A to the contrary. Now we are stuck with it as a nation. We are supposed to be able to move to a different State when laws are passed that we don’t agree with. But no more. No place to run. This is NOT in line with OUR Constitution.

    14A originally was the Civil Rights Act of 1866…but Republicans didn’t trust Democrats and created 14A. And now look at the mess we have as a result. Lesson: don’t mess with the Constitution – it’s most perfect as is!

    Don’t expect SCOTUS to visit 14A with results in line with the Constitution. To do so would expose their unconstitutional incorporation doctrine…and every single unconstitutional decision thereof. It’s simple – per our Constitution, what branch of the government is delegated to MAKE LAW? Answer: Legislative branch. And yet all discussion is about an EO from the Executive branch upheld by a future decision of the Judicial branch. See the problem?

    Like

  20. TomR,Worc,MA,USA says:

    In my mind the beauty of this idea is that President Trump is using the left’s tactics against it. He issues this order, it is immediately challenged in court. It winds it’s way in front of the SCOTUS and is ruled constitutional. Settled law. He smugly looks at them and says “elections have concequences”. Heh. Then in a few years and he replaces Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg and this decision is locked up for the next 50 years.

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Lanna says:

    13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are known as the “Reconstruction Amendments”, designed to guarantee the rights of freed slaves and address slavery, citizenship and voting rights. These Amendments work together to codify the rights of former slaves. The 14th in particular was crafted to overturn the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which said Americans descended from Africans could not be citizens of the U.S.

    In the 14th, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been intentionally misinterpreted, basically by executive fiat (State Department issuance of passports to anyone born in the U.S.) while ignoring the text and legislative history of the Amendment. There is a distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction (all within a sovereign’s borders are subject to the laws) and complete political jurisdiction (which also requires allegiance to the sovereign).

    If the Amendment meant that all persons born within the borders of the U.S. were automatically citizens, regardless of the status of their parents or circumstances of their birth, there would have been no need to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Prior to that decision, Elk v. Wilkins (1884) denied citizenship to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance” to his tribe and not the U.S. This is a powerful argument against birthright citizenship.

    It’s imperative that we have originalists on the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s confirmation was a major victory because of these types of cases which will eventually be brought before the Court.

    Liked by 5 people

    • G. Combs says:

      You are correct Lanna.
      ALSO the Supreme Court ruled TWICE on the anchor baby issue.

      “….Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

      Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

      The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

      The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

      Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called ‘Slaughter-House cases’ [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ excluded from its operation ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.’ In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be ‘not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.’ […]”

      http://www.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies

      The actual question is whether the babies of 2 legal immigrants who have NOT yet gotten citizenship are citizens! ( Some of my aunts & uncles from my German immigrant grandparents for example.)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Christine says:

        ⬆️⬆️⬆️THIS! ⬆️⬆️⬆️

        When the drafter of the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard, states to the Senate during the 1866 debate that “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens….” etc, the spirit and intent of the 14th Amendment could not be more clear!

        And now, with a solid 5:4 Conservative majority on the Supreme Court, President Trump’s Executive Order should be on solid ground!

        Like

      • Kenji says:

        Permit me to add the following “context” to the 14th Amendment.

        “… excluded from its operation ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.”

        In the 18th and 19th Century, travel to the US was difficult, and the remote location of the US made access difficult to all those except a relatively few “… ministers, consuls and citizens of foreign states …” Therefore, the exclusion was not intended as limited to foreign “ministers and consuls” … but to ALL foreign born people subject to their native jurisdiction.

        There is only ONE WAY to interpret the 14th Amendment. Especially since travel to the US is no longer a difficult challenge. We can be INVADED and OVERRUN by jet airplane, boat, and NAFTA-truck filled with illegals stacked like cordwood as if chained to a slave ships hold of the 19th century.

        Like

    • FanGirl says:

      In a nutshell, the 14A was so that nobody was born into the US without a country. Slaves did not have a country. Indians had an allegiance to their tribes. Illegals are marching towards our country with the flag of their home country. REAL United States citizen children in Cal. are being disallowed from wearing the US flag on their clothing while anchor babies wear tshirts with the flag from their home country.

      Liked by 3 people

  22. trapper says:

    And finally, this one will give you all the citations you need to know and read to blow away anyone who may want to argue with you in favor of BC:

    https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship/

    Liked by 2 people

  23. tsmifjones says:

    Praise Lord. Thank you for Donald Trump.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Troublemaker10 says:

    Wasn’t there a SCOTUS ruling that interpreted immigration law to mean babies born to legal permant residents are US citizens? And, at the same time, wasn’t it simply just a bureaucratic shift in government assuming birthright citizenship just for being born here (no law or legal ruling) for illegals? If it was just a bureaucratic shift in interpretation, then why couldn’t an executive order be just as valid to correct that misinterpretation?

    Liked by 5 people

  25. J Gottfred says:

    Have not read the comments, but Do it! Do it Now! DO IT RIGHT NOW!

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Sprawlie says:

    Here are the key bits from United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘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.’

    …The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

    Here is the key bit from the dissension:

    I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute.

    In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens.

    Like

    • Sprawlie says:

      The case has already settled that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” applies to “a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States”, a case for which there was no legislative measure or executive guideline to clearly define whether Kim’s parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under their ‘immigration status’ via the Burlingame Treaty.

      I think an angle to play on this might be the President as Chief Executive using his power to set forth regulation that addresses what classes of aliens are granted permanent domicile and residence vs those that are temporary guests based on the immigration laws already on the books. The Johnson era Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that created the temporary asylum category, or the UN treaty on refugees might already grant POTUS this authority.

      Like

  27. wildsailor2018 says:

    If the appeals process through the lower liberal activist courts takes long enough RBG may be replaced before this ship pulls up to the bar!

    Liked by 1 person

  28. kay123 says:

    The 14th amendment was meant for servant blacks who were not
    allowed to vote. In 1886 WILKES vs Elk (?)(indian) In which the indian
    wanted citizenship but at that time they were under their own Tribal
    jurisdiction and even though they were born in the USA they were
    not citizens under the US Constitution. That for him to be a citizen,
    he had to renounce his “tribal citizenship” and remove himself from
    the “reservation tribal jurisdiction” and become naturalized
    by law, to become a US citizen under US jurisdiction.

    So since Mexico is not a US state…. they have not given up
    their loyalties…. denounced their citizenship to Mexico…
    they have not been naturalized by law, they have no ” rights”
    to the US. Babies born to illegals have no rights to citizenship
    even if they are born here.
    This has all been hashed out in courts early in 1800’s.
    This has been twisted, lied about, and dissected for 200 years.

    Trump needs to change it.

    Our forefathers were so much smarter. They drew up a document
    that every person in the world woud die to have in their own
    country…… but won’t because they did not vote right in their
    own country.

    Like

  29. Ray Runge says:

    Some 7 hours previous, I attempted to post about the lack of wisdom for a constitutional republic to accede to an Executive decree as the guiding force to establish immigration policy. IMHO, the USA Republic will be wisely served by the Congress weighing in on immigration policy.

    Will the hall monitors permit honest discussion on this site?

    Like

    • Rhoda R says:

      Snark much? The problem has been that Congress, out of cowardice, has refused to address immigration problems. The only avenue left for the President is via EOs.

      Like

      • annieoakley says:

        Congress, out of cowardice and laziness, has given up much of its powers. The power of the Treasury is one. How long has it it been since we had even an attempt at a budget? So much of the federal Government is bought and paid for by foreigners that it hardly resembles the original. Congress doesn’t want to make decisions, so they don’t.

        Like

    • Louisiana Tea Rose says:

      Uh, Runge, well, you’re here puttin on your stuff, aren’t ya?

      If ur lookin’ for some censorship, Boss, ur gonna have to go to some o’ them places that shut down ur privileges like FB, Twatter, Gab…….ya know, sh!t like that…

      Like

  30. Anonymous says:

    Sneaking in without permission (especially while waving a Honduran flag and yelling “Gimme ‘Free Sh*t’, America!”) isn’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” so kids born here then aren’t citizens.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. listingstarboard says:

    So we abort babies from American citizens and encourage babies of illegal aliens.

    Like

  32. sunnydaysall says:

    Tucker Carlson did a great job on this very topic tonight. I have never believed we actually had a law or an amendment that allowed illegals to have babies here and make them full citizens. I was taught in my high school civics class (many many years ago) that those amendments were for making the freed slaves full citizens after the civil war!

    Liked by 1 person

  33. kay123 says:

    The 14th amendment was meant for servant blacks who were not
    allowed to vote. In 1886 WILKES vs Elk (?)(indian) In which the indian
    wanted citizenship but at that time they were under their own Tribal
    jurisdiction and even though they were born in the USA they were
    not citizens under the US Constitution. That for him to be a citizen,
    he had to renounce his “tribal citizenship” and remove himself from
    the “reservation tribal jurisdiction” and become naturalized
    by law, to become a US citizen under US jurisdiction.
    Land belonging to Native Americans is not for any person
    who is not under Native American jurisdiction…. you cannot
    move there without Tribal permission.

    So since Mexico is not a US state…. they have not given up
    their loyalties…. denounced their citizenship to Mexico…
    they have not been naturalized by law, they have no ” rights”
    to the US. Babies born to illegals have no rights to citizenship
    even if they are born here.
    This has all been hashed out in courts early in 1800’s.
    This has been twisted, lied about, and dissected for 200 years.

    Trump needs to change it.

    Our forefathers were so much smarter. They drew up a document
    that every person in the world woud die to have in their own
    country…… but won’t because they did not vote right in their
    own country.

    Like

  34. Piggy says:

    The 14th Amendment had to do with former slaves and nothing else. Civil War ended in 1865 and the 14th Amendment was passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868. Was part of reconstruction.

    The 14th Amendment has been completely perverted. Everything the Uniparty says is a lie.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Doppler says:

    As a constitutional matter, it is unwise to attempt to amend the Constitution by EO, and it will ultimately fail, especially with our original intent majority on SCOTUS. Would you want any Democrat candidate for president in 2020 to have that power?

    The real challenge is securing the boarder in a time when half the country accepts or is used to this globalist theme of open boarders, and when caravans of migrants are being organized here by hostile human trafficking forces like MS13 for profit. They are today’s slave trade. The bleeding heart meme of giving sanctuary to the downtrodden is wearing thin with images of the caravans of people who want jobs here, but do not respect our laws. The Democrats are being exposed for lacking real values and virtues, and instead to be serving hidden political purposes that include doing away with constitutional limitations on government and the 1st and 2d Amendments, while signing away our sovereignty to unaccountable international organizations. They’re exposing themselves as people who “virtue signal” their “goodness” to each other, while mostly unaware of the hidden intent of those who fund their “movement” to subjugate us all to remote, unaccountable political and economic power. Our Constitution is our sanctuary, and must not be surrendered.

    I think the President should ask Congress to declare war on MS13 and their collaborators in organizing these invader caravans, use facial recognition software to identify our enemies, and be prepared to confront the masses militarily, with targeted sniper fire at enemies, and rubber bullets for the crowd. One such confrontation would do wonders for reversing the pull to el Norte that years of lax border security and self-destructive globalist policies have created.

    Let’s preserve the benefits of the strong American economy for Americans and select immigrants who respect our laws. For bleeding hearts, including many Christians, a shortage of workers will do more for those African American and Native Americans who remain in poverty than anything socialism can offer. Empower Blexit leaders, as well.

    Like

    • Piggy says:

      Not amending anything…follow as written. The 14th was never intended for foreigners till the Leftists took over in the 1960’s with activist judges.

      All birth right citizen claims are lies. Illegal immigration is neo-slavery and it victimizes not only US citizens but also the illegals who have been led to believe these lies.

      A welfare state can not exist with open borders.

      Like

  36. anthony earl says:

    so, if POTUS puts it out there anchor babies are no more and it goes to the SC and they agree, then would the ruling be retro active? would they, could they, say every person born to non citizens must now apply for citizenship?
    this announcement by POTUS, if it gets to the caravan, might only make the women drop out since it shut the door on them if they are pregnant already.

    Like

  37. Donna in Oregon says:

    At last. Common sense. Best President ever!!

    Like

  38. Colin the little brown emoji says:

    That would make all the “Dreamer” nonsense a moot issue too.
    Hehehehehehehe.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s