Posted on 10/30/2018 2:05:00 PM PDT by reaganaut1
No doubt there is a reason trump held off on this until the second pick on the court..
this will be headed to the SCOTUS..
Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order, JoSixChip wrote:
The question is, what does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean. I don’t know the answer to that.
anything else we can help you with please ask :)
“The question is, what does ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ mean. I don’t know the answer to that.”
It means that they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of another country. If it did not mean that, then there would have been no reason at all to include the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the amendment. If birthright citizenship was the intent then the amendment would simply have been worded “All persons born within the United States are citizens of the United States and of the states in which they reside.”
a twisted interpretation of the 14th makes them think it is.
MORE GOOD NEWS! THIS ELECTION CANNOT COME SOON ENOUGH!>>>>>>>
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) says he is now less attached to defending Attorney General Jeff Sessions if President Trump moves to replace him.
“The answer that I gave a year ago was directed directly at the president that I honestly didn’t have time to consider anything else. It was also somewhat of a defense of Sessions,” Grassley told the Washington Examiner in an interview published Monday, referencing comments he made last year that he did not have time to confirm a replacement.
“Now, I’m kind of nonchalant about defending Sessions,” he said. “I like him very much personally, and I want him to be a good attorney general, but the president’s got a right to have somebody in there he wanted.”
Grassley told the Examiner he had time on his calendar to consider replacements, adding, “I’m not just saying that not just about Sessions. I got time [for anything].”
Grassley made similar statements in August, according to Bloomberg, saying, “I do have time for hearings on nominees that the president might send up here that I didn’t have last year.”
Via the Hill.com
From my proposed Constitutional Amendment as part of my Immigration Reform plan on my home page here:
SECTION 3. The first sentence of SECTION 1 of Amendment XIV is hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. Henceforth, every child born in the USA after ratification shall be born with the citizenship of their mother as of 320 days prior to birth.
SECTION 5. No person may be granted US citizenship unless the person is over age 22 and proves US residence in at least 54 of the prior 60 months and lawful US earnings typical of full-time employment for at least four of the five prior calendar years.
SECTION 6. No treaty may be entered into that would or could, require US residency, naturalization, citizenship or welfare benefits to be granted, restrict/bar deportation, impair US entry security, impose any form of international taxation within the United States, require any contingent payment from any domestic person or entity, or other than a treaty solely dealing with a domestic Indian tribe or intellectual property, remain in force in excess of ten years.
SECTION 7. No bill proposing an immigration/naturalization legal change and a federal expenditure for any extraneous purpose may become law.
While Section I of Amendment XIV was not meant to apply to renegade Indians and the illegals are mainly Central American Indians that scoff at our laws, a Trump executive order probably won’t do what is needed since Democrats may regain power.
My detest for these people has no bounds.
“The question is, what does ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ mean. I don’t know the answer to that.”
It means that they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of another country. If it did not mean that, then there would have been no reason at all to include the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the amendment. If birthright citizenship was the intent then the amendment would simply have been worded “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Me think they protest too much.
President Trump is bringing up subjects the RINOs and Democrats don’t want brought up.
Once again I want to Thank President Trump for making these fake Republicans to expose themselves for the rats they are.
Lindsey Graham version 2.0 says he will introduce legislation for it. McCain is turning in his grave.
Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’ll introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship
what does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean
The clause was not meant to apply to children of tourists, foreigners with diplomatic immunity and renegade Indians.
When I read statements like this from the GOP’s Congressional leadership, I wonder why we even bother to vote any more.
Is “Defend the 14th Amendment” our new national campaign theme?
We didn’t like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action
And may I ask Ryan and Grassley, what did you two do about it?
Oh wait, nothing
So it was fine when Obama did it because you allowed him to do it. But President Trump is baaaaddd, fricken NPCs orange man bad
Ryanbot loading trumpisbad.exe
A ripple has disturbed two swamp creatures. Halloween for illegals and illegal lovers. Life is about to improve for all Americans and the swamp sends forth two of its evil doers. President Trump forces fear upon the haters of America and Americans
“We didn’t like it when Obama tried changing immigration laws via executive action, and obviously as conservatives we believe in the Constitution.”
“Tried?” He did! And limp-wristed weasels like you let him get away with it, Ryan!
Bottom line is this so called birth right citizenship is one solid Supreme Court decision away from being tossed into the dust bin of history.
It was never legit, it had nothing to do with our Constitution. God luv ya this Supreme Court and just bin it. This cannot come soon enough.
This is interesting.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
If it’s only birth, you don’t need that “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase. What are they proposing that that means?
Jonathan Turley says Trump has a case.
Ryan and Grassley might have a point too, but what Trump FOR SURE can do is start the process of dealing with this.
Your move, congress.
Trump shouldn’t need an EO to execute the law as it was written. He might need one to suspend the current practice of ignoring the law as written though.
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.