Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reaganaut1

What?

Absolutely not a Constitutional Amendment

No.

It may require legislation, but the Constitution says NOTHING about birthright citizenship that I know of. (called “Jus soli”, and only we and Canada have it among developed countries)

Am I wrong on this?


11 posted on 10/30/2018 2:11:41 PM PDT by rlmorel (Leftists: They believe in the "Invisible Hand" only when it is guided by government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: rlmorel

a twisted interpretation of the 14th makes them think it is.


24 posted on 10/30/2018 2:20:12 PM PDT by cableguymn (We need a redneck in the white house....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

To: rlmorel
Am I wrong on this?

Not on the face of it.

IMO, neither an amendment or a statute is required. If Trump issues an EO and directs his various depts. to proceed the left/globalists/RINO's will have a hissy fit and take it to the Judiciary. Fair enough.

In this instance, Trump would merely be cleaning up an inappropriate policy within the Executive Branch.

The single statute the globalists rely on (Title 8, Sect. 1401), beyond cleaning up a few contemporaneous issues, went beyond the language of the 14thA to narrowly include Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

To suppose Congress intended to redefine the "jurisdiction" element of the 14thA by also including onsite born children of illegal entrants seems a significant defect.

46 posted on 10/30/2018 2:33:32 PM PDT by frog in a pot (Obama's "Remaking of America" continues apace in the absence of effective political opposition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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