1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Trump trying to alter 14th Amendment

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by MemphisMark, Nov 1, 2018.

  1. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Maybe more of a clarification. He's wanting to stop "anchor babies" by saying, "children born on US soil to illegal immigrants are not US citizens, but citizens of the parent's country. Just like children born to US parents on foreign soil (two famous ones are McCain (Panama) and Cruz Canada) ) are US citizens and not citizens of the country where they were born."
     
    Arc and Allene like this.
  2. Andy

    Andy ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    The real irony here.

    Dems are decrying how sacred the 14th is for illegals, when one of it’s purposes was to give children of Slaves the right of citizenship that Dems refused to alllow back then.
     
    ethics, Arc and Allene like this.
  3. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    It'll never fly. Considering you need a 2/3 vote in Congress or 2/3 ratification by all states, this has a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

    While I'm all for doing away with the anchor baby provision in the Constitution, I highly doubt we'll ever see it passed.
     
    ShinyTop likes this.
  4. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    I’m still doing research. It’s possible.
     
  5. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Anchor babies is a good example of how careful we should be when asking for or creating amendments. They should be basic to the core beliefs of the country, not expedients for the moment. Anchor babies were made part of the Constitution at a time when we needed immigration. Well and good but that should have been a law that could be more easily changed as circumstances require.

    This is sort of the way Congress packs good laws with more questionable provisions to get them by the populous. My state, Florida, has 13 amendments on the ballot next Tuesday. Many combine several issues making it very difficult to understand much less decide on whether to vote for it or not. Example, proposed Amendment 9 combines prohibiting offshore drilling with outlawing vaping in public spaces. WTF? Another amendment gives more rights to victims of crimes and oh, by the way, raises the mandatory retirement age of state judges. Another is labeled "Limitations on Property Tax Assessment". Sound like Ya, I don't want my property tax raised! Right? But when you read the damn thing it is about commercial property, not homes. Too many voters will go to the polls to help Trump or help stop Trump. When they get to two pages of amendments with fine print they will only read the label and then vote. It's the details, people, it's in the details.
     
    Allene, Biker and ethics like this.
  6. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    We have two propositions to vote on, but they are single topics. Yours are really out there!! LOL!
     
  7. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    Actually, the legal hook that Anchor babies "hang on" is a footnote in an 80's SCOTUS ruling, I'm still trying to track it down.

    If you read what the author of the 14th Amendment said about it, a foreign national who is not undergoing the immigration process (they are a still a citizen of their home country and not trying to become a US Citizen) the child that is born from that foreign national is a citizen of the parent's home country, not a US citizen, even if she gave birth on US soil. That is because the home country has jurisdiction (the second part of that phrase) over the parent. It purposefully excludes Native Americans, foreign diplomats and international visitors.
     
  8. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Try 1898.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
     
    Allene likes this.
  9. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Couldn't they just draw up a new law that applies to children of illegal immigrants and then trash it out? It would give them something to chew on for a couple of years.
     
  10. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    That was the SCOTUS decision AGAINST birthright. There was a footnote to a 1980's case where a Liberal justice made a note in the vein of "we shouldn't/can't make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants."
     
  11. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Wrong.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] 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.
     
  12. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Not really. Since the "anchor baby" provision is couched in the Constitution, it would take a Contstitutional amendment to do away with it. This means a 2/3 ratification by all 50 states or a 2/3 ratification by Congress. I don't see either happening.
     
  13. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old School Conservative

    The applicable part of the 14th Amendment reads thusly:
    Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means many things, you must not only obey the laws, but be subject to the duties, like jury duty, serve in the armed forces, vote and other civic duties. Illegals cannot do these things, and so are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the government, either federal, state or local.

    Illegals are still citizens of their home countries, and so are their offspring, no matter the location when they give birth.

    So says Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the Amendment.
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page