Posted on 10/30/2018 2:05:00 PM PDT by reaganaut1
To Grassley - Hey, Chuck, why don’t you stick to helping Trump’s nominees get through your committee? You should know better, that at the very most a new law is necessary, establishing those over whom the US will exercise jurisdiction for 14th Amendment purposes.
To Ryan - STFU and go home already!
Whenever Trump start talking EOs he is trying to get congress to DO something. FIX the Law!!! Do your job!
If nohing else, this starts the ball rolling.
I hope Trump does it.
And where were they when DACA was created out of thin obamium?
The Kenyan would have just declared it so and thus it was.
It absolutely can be done. His EO would just end a fairly recent, faulty and stupid interpretation of it.
ALL it takes is a BETTER Supreme Court ! And we may now have it!
Let’s call it the anchor baby loophole, instead of birthright citizenship.
Children of citizens will still receive citizenship as a birthright, only those who try to steal it would be (once again) banned.
Ryan is a puppet of the open borders U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
He will make millions more than he already has when his worthless a$$ retires from Congress and he becomes a full-time open borders stooge.
Why don’t these assholes keep their mouths zipped? Sandbagging Trump right before the midterms is a horrible move. Ryan is deep state, Grassley is just an old fool.
No positive law exists that does it Ryan. It was acquiesced by the US government in the 60s and in the 70s by lack of inforcement. Ryan is wrong again.
Inforcement = Enforcement.
Ugh!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen.
This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
Extended to children of illegal aliens.
You can try to argue it before the Supreme Court but keep in mind that it wasn’t too long ago they extended 14th amendment protection to gay marriage.
I think Grassley was simply stating his opinion. It’s not as though he is against Trump.
Attaboys . . . do the enemies bidding
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
This Court ruling is irrelevant. The Chinese parents were in the country legally, legally domiciled, and legally working, are were therefore legally under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Children born in the U.S. prior to the 14th Amendment were NOT considered citizens if they were born of aliens whose residence was temporary, “either in fact or point of law”, which means children born of illegal aliens were not automatically citizens.
Nothing changed during the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In fact, it was specifically stated during the debates that the amendment was intended for former slaves, and children of former slaves.
The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with illegal aliens.
If you are born here of illegal aliens, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the parents home country. Not American jurisdiction.
The 14th Amendment delt with Native Americans, slaves and their offspring.
No one else.
5.56mm
I think it was strictly slaves & off-springs originally.
Did a Supreme Court case later apply it to AmerInds?
I can’t think of an example!
The Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT need to be amended, it needs to be obeyed as it was written and according to its original intent.
To wit: Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
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.