Posted on 10/30/2018 8:33:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Leftists want to point to the poor, downtrodden, Central American mammas struggling to survive and having babies in the USA.
But what about the Chinese “Birthing Centers” in LA and New York? In this case, wealthy Chinese women, who arrive on tourist visas, pay $50-$100K, to live in a private apartment/maternity ward for 6 weeks. They have their baby, and it is immediately granted a US passport. Then the whole family goes back to China. Of course, if there are any complications, the woman is sent to a public hospital, where taxpayers pay for all her expenses.
Is that right? Is that compassionate? is that just?
RE: Hey, retroactively, this removes citizenship from Kamala Harris, Nikki Haley, and others. Even Little Marco?
Nope, their parents were here in the USA LEGALLY.
But I agree, retroactive is impractical. Make it applicable AS OF THE TIME THE EO IS IN EFFECT.
The lesson was learned long ago and is still true:
http://www.historynet.com/war-behind-the-wire-koje-do-prison-camp.htm
American experience with prisoners in Korea...no matter how well-intentioned... it’s lose/lose
Legally qualify? I don’t think so. While some or all may have been here legally, they were not permanent residents. A pregnant Chinese mother-to-be my get a visa to come to America, then give birth. She’s here legally but that doesn’t mean the kid is a US citizen. It shouldn’t.
You are assuming the tents will be on US soil? What if they are being set up on Mexican soil?
It’s in the Constitution. Executive Order VS Constitution. Constitution wins. Try something else.
The 14th 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.”
The argument will be on the phrase: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
And that’s why there are so many Chinese here. They have been doing this for generations.
In my view the line in the 14th “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means no birthright citizenship for children born of
1)Illegal Aliens
2)Foreign Diplomats
3)Tourists
I don’t think the authors of that amendment stuck that line in there cause they were overly concerned with a tiny number of diplomat’s kids getting citizenship.
All we need is a Supreme Court to agree.
So my guess is that an EO need merely to declare a judicial-esque interpretation of what this phrase means... something that SCOTUS can then validate... and declare this interpretation to be the policy of the United States for implementation of the 14th amendment's provisions.
That said, it will be important to have a SCOTUS decision so that any future administration would not be able to rescind this coming EO.
Heheheh.....cute.
Take it back far enough and it will impact him as well. I believe that his paternal grandparents were illegal immigrants, Fred Trump was what would today be called an anchor baby.
Even if my interpretation is not correct (waiting on legal scholars to weigh in), it should prevail anyway, libs twist the Constitution into pretzels whenever it suits them (see Roe V Wade, Dread Scott V. Sanford and a hundred other ridiculous decisions), it’s the only way we’ll ever be rid of anchor babies. The 14th amendment is not a suicide pact.
That’s fine, but we DO NOT need to subsidize the idea.
If Mexico cannot/will not discourage use of their country as an unimpeded conduit to the US ... then let THEM feed and assist the migrants.
America should be OUT of the ‘save the world’ business.
Nothing will ever encourage other countries of the world to look after themselves and become capable of self-government if we keep feeding them and supporting them, with NO expectation or requirement for improvement on social or political issues.
The US has been doing SO much for SO long that it’s time we cut them for bait and NO ONE can say we are uncaring or heartless.
They had continuous and very generous front-loaded assistance from Uncle Sam for many years so ...if they couldn’t get it together after decades of unstinting US help, then so be it.
Never mind that we will NEVER be repaid … not EVEN with allegiance or respect
Ping to #30
Rush going over this now. Your interpretation is correct. This was meant for slaves, not for invaders.
Read the PDF linked here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997590##
Leftists can twist 2nd amendment beyond recognition. So can they do 14th
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.