Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: joesbucks

I’m pretty skeptical that an Exec order of this type will have any chance of being upheld in the courts.

After all the 14th amendment explicitly states that: “”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...”


6 posted on 10/30/2018 5:26:10 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: traderrob6

I think the real purpose of the EO is to smoke out the opposition, both Pubbie and ‘Rat.


13 posted on 10/30/2018 5:29:59 AM PDT by mewzilla (Is Central America emptying its prisons?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6
After all the 14th amendment explicitly states

And the 2nd explicitly states "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but plenty seem to think that's open to interpretation.

I'll just be happy to see the term "Anchor Babies" being discussed in the news. The left has hidden that element of the illegal invasion for far too long.

29 posted on 10/30/2018 5:41:03 AM PDT by grobdriver (BUILD KATE'S WALL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the key.


41 posted on 10/30/2018 5:56:18 AM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

That’s the whole point. The “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has never been addressed by SCOTUS. Does mere physical presence (even if illegal) on US soil make one “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” for the purpose of birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment?


46 posted on 10/30/2018 6:05:25 AM PDT by AustinBill (consequence is what makes our choices real)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,...”

If a woman illegally crosses the border carrying a child and delivers that child on American soil it is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Those who are naturalized have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States in order to become citizens.

Of course any federal judge nominated by a democrat president will almost certainly rule that I don’t have a clue but those nominated by Donald Trump may be more realistic.


47 posted on 10/30/2018 6:05:30 AM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

An originalist justice would base his decision on the meaning of the clause “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at time the amendment was ratified, not what libs or conservatives want it to mean today. Any legal scholars here know what the meaning of that clause was at the time of ratification?


70 posted on 10/30/2018 6:45:02 AM PDT by TheConservativeBanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

The debate has always been are children of illegals “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It looks like we’re going to find out.

I’m pretty skeptical too, but then I have been a Vikings fan for almost 50 years and a conservative for more than half that time. I have learned (painfully) to not get my hopes up.


72 posted on 10/30/2018 6:45:38 AM PDT by Gil4 (And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, ax and saw)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: traderrob6

Are they really subject to the “jurisdiction thereof”. They have no regard for our laws, otherwise they would enter LEGALLY.


82 posted on 10/30/2018 7:21:26 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson