POLITICS Trump Ending Birthright Citizenship?

Written by this guy:

"Brian Lonergan is director of communications at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration."

So, I'm not exactly shocked he came to the conclusion he did since he probaly worked backwards.

This is the third post to reference the quote by Hammond, too, but I'll note again that the discussion on the amendment was correctly identified by another senator to give foreign nationals the right to citizenship by birth and this is why he opposed it. So, it's not the smoking gun you and DC were hoping it is.

 

I read it, I corrected it, and I am sure I will have to again

 

I gave my thoughts on this clause/ comment above (on page 2). IMO, this carve out provided by the Senator,

"will not, of course, include persons in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

is very specific to families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. Silence (absence of language) in a legal document relative to illegal aliens does not extend to their inclusion in this excluded group of families.

JMO.

Fix it in the Constitution if we want them excluded.

 

You can line up a whole gang of people to interpret up is down, and hold a gun to my head and make me nod yes. It won't make it true and America will be like so many other countries in history, no longer the city on the hill.

The amendment clearly says those born in the US are citizens.

Those who swore an oath to uphold the constitution are breaking their oath if they decide to circumvent the congressional and state mechanisms for changing the constitution.

 

SCOTUS will settle this.

Surely, we can all agree on that.

 

It also says “subject to the jurisdiction”.

Would the children of an invading army be Americans?

Don’t get silly with your interpretation of what constitutes a violation of an oath.

Like I said, SCOTUS will settle this. Nothing to really argue about, until they do.

 

A group of unelected officials, three of which seated under questionable circumstances. No, Tenny. SCOTUS may make a ruling, but wrongful rulings will be fought forever. Forever.

 

Yes.

I'm not being silly.

 

I mean, is it your position that 150 years ago, the writers of the amendment anticipated women soldiers? You want to go on record with that as your story?

 

Now SCOTUS is merely a group of “unelected officials”? You’re in for a very rough patch, IP.

“Questionable circumstances” got a legit LOL. Impeach’em, IP. Please.

You remember that line about “wrongful rulings”, big guy. I will.

 

Would that child then, in his own home, be considered a prisoner of war?

 

Depends.

Do the words in the Constitution have a definitive meaning? I understand some have claimed it to be a “living document” for some 60 years or so, and which allows just about anything to be read into and included in it.

So, I ask.

 

Depends.

Are they white?

 

And surely, you would agree, the second amendment is open to similar “interpretation” in the future (this is coming from someone who does interpret the second amendment as an individual right)?

 

What nation we have been at war with has no dual citizen? None. So I don't see how what you're saying makes any sense at all. Their status as a POW is mostly predicated on being a, you know, prisoner.

 

Do you believe every SCOTUS ruling ever made was absolutely correct?

 

Words have meaning. Looks like you have no real principles, though. Just positions.

 

If an invading army from Mars were here and had a child, then that cute little red thing would be an American citizen. An American citizen being held hostage in his crib, in his UFO, with his Martian parents, who have invaded and attacked our country.

 

A "living document" doesn't mean you interpret it to what suits the day. It means it can be changed.

At least that was always my understanding of what a living document was.

 

Can we get a public poll to see which posters want to end birthright citizenship?