Look, I got mine. Pull up the drawbridge! Mount the ramparts! Fill the moat with crocodiles!
RELEASE THE KRACKEN!
That's what these so called "anchor babies" are going to be when President Trump get this straightened out.
I don't think ending birthright citizenship is "Un-American." Lots of other civilized nations don't extend citizenship to newborns whose parents happen to be - how shall I put this? - visiting. A policy of fewer incentives for illegal immigration and more incentives for legal immigration would be my preference.
This is too important a change to be implemented by executive order. But Trump is following Obama's dirigiste playbook.
I appreciate the trickiness of his comment “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits,”. Heads are exploding, people are saying there are other countries that offer birthright citizenship and so what he said is a lie. Actually, what he said is NOT a lie. We *are* the only country where an anchor baby can be born and claim US citizenship. People sure can't illegally go into Canada, (or any other country), have a baby, and the baby then claim US citizenship.
We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States
Wow, that's very good - and Trump was absolutely correct.
The stupid MSM and lefties don't have a basic understanding of language, and have said he "lied" for the only reason they didn't like how the quote made them feel.
Anything that challenges their fantasy world they call a "lie". A true delusion.
Yah! No more citizenship for the children of egg farm workers and berry pickers and utility line brush cutters in the northern half of the state! We reserve that benefit for the children of American methheads!
@lucky: "People sure can't illegally go into Canada (or any other country) and claim US citizenship."
I'm assuming you meant "Canadian citizenship", b/c I think it would be awfully strange for a Nigerian to go to Canada and then claim US citizenship.
But if you did mean Canadian citizenship, it's pretty much the same as here:
"Under paragraph 3(1)(a) of the 1977 Act, any person who was born in Canada on or after 15 February 1977 acquires Canadian citizenship at birth. The Interpretation Act states that the term "Canada" not only includes Canadian soil, but also "the internal waters" and "the territorial sea" of Canada, with the term "internal waters" being defined as including "the airspace above". Hence, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada considers all children who were born over Canadian airspace as Canadian citizens. In one 2008 case, a girl born to a Ugandan mother aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston was deemed a Canadian citizen because she was born over Canadian airspace.
In addition, the interpretation section of the Citizenship Act states that any person who was born on an aircraft registered in Canada, or a vessel registered in Canada, is considered to be born in Canada."
In fact, this is an issue there as well:
I'm assuming you meant "Canadian citizenship",
No, lucky meant exactly what she said.
Thank you, Tom.
I did edit my comment for clarity.
Matt - No more citizenship for the children of egg farm workers and berry pickers and utility line brush cutters in the northern half of the state
WRONG, Matt. They can become citizens the right way; through the citizenship process.
Take a deep breath and wait. There is an argument based on the "original intent" of the amendment that could hold up .
Bruce ,heads explode it reaches the Supreme Court and Kavanaugh becomes the deciding vote.....boom!
A very plausible chronology !
As Rush pointed out today this really started in 60's when Teddy was screwing things up.
Maybe Ted Cruz should weigh in on this matter?
Oh wait, he was born in Canada...
TC the difference is that Cruz is the child of an American citizen who was born on Canadian soil.....Avery big difference between that and an anchor baby,who is the child of non citizens.
Sort of like Obama being born in Kenya to a mother from Wichita.
C'mon, Mat! You know better than that. Obama was born in Hawaii to the Wichita chick and a wannabe porn producer commie. Everything Kenyan . . and that includes the book . . was an elaborate AND successful diversion. Please try to be conspiracy current.
On topic, what Bruce said. I heard it too, Bruce and it sounds like it has legs. As to Mr. Carter's Cruz slap, I'm guessing that Ted thought it fit to look into the matter when his citizenship was questioned. He agrees that Trump (and Rush's caller) have a good argument. Search 'Joe Pags show' to hear Cruz in his own words.
E'mike: dirigiste Scrabble word score: 11
Hey Carter, there's hope for you cognitive dysfunction! https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/10/30/662127406/when-adol...
It works for teens, maybe it might help you understand the difference between Ted Cruz being born in Canada to American parents and an illegal alien having a baby in the United States.
The wording in the Constitution seems pretty clear here so in order to change it the Constitution has to be changed. That’s doable but it’s a long drawn out process.
Maybe if some of you took off the blinders for your love of Trump you might want to step back and think what could happen if a court precedent says that the president can override the constitution by executive order. Trump isn’t going to be the president forever. Might a liberal president down the road decide to, say, override the 2nd Amendment by executive order?
Here is the solution.
Take some of money being spent and rebuild Ellis Island. You get there and then get in ala rules prior to Ted Kennedys' vote plan.
Matt actually I agree with you .It is for that simple reason the Kenyan narrative never held water .Mom was an American who as far as I know never renounce her citizenship ,so it doesn't matter if he was born on the moon....maybe I'm wrong because dad wasn't a citizen but …..
One parent is enough.
Obama already breached the Constitution with "his pen and his phone" - after stating those things were unconstitutional, he went ahead and did them anyway. Efficiency - he's his own accuser.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it's just terrible to contemplate doing something that might not be constitutional by executive order! Oh, wait... I thought the Constitution was a "living document" that "evolved as needed"? Or did it just "firm up" when someone else got elected?
This from the Heritage Foundation:
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
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.
GOP civil war: Trump slams Paul Ryan for opposing end to birthright citizenship
" . . Many legal scholars believe the issue was settled by an 1898 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving a man born in the United States to Chinese parents who lived here legally."
Crack reporting. It's a little ambiguous as to whether the parents or the man were living here legally. Absent a citation to the case, my inner wordsmith tells me it was the parents.
NBC accepts and expects that no one reads all the way to the end of their reporting.
Another good read on the anchor baby problem:
The True History of Millstone Babies
As the court has explained again and again and again:
“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a Civil War to end.
The 14th Amendment fixed that.
The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.
Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?
Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.”
It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.”
This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.
Trump can stop this ridiculous designation....for now.
Congress needs to act to clarify and codify the 14th as to it's original intentions.
Congress needs to act? Congress who? Ours doesn't act, not even with the majority.
I think Trump has made (will make) the right call. As with his Drop DACA order, lower, weaker courts will try to block him but, ultimately, The Supremes will get it. Maybe they'll read the law and not find that illegals are merely a tax on more prosperous citizens.
And thank you for the citation: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There's more at the link. Keep in mind that Wiki articles are the thoughts and opinions of the authors who post them.