Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

14th Amendment

Big ChiefBig Chief Senior MemberPosts: 32,995 Senior Member

Is it time to change it? Trump will surely challenged all the way to SCOTUS.

What other countries have birthright citizenship?

"Most countries in the world do not offer birthright citizenship — only 30 out of the world’s 194 nations automatically grant citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

No European country has birthright citizenship, and the global trend over the past 30 years has been to halt the practice. Notable countries that have ended birthright citizenship in recent decades include the U.K. in 1983, Australia in 1986, India in 1987 and Ireland in 2004.

The Western Hemisphere is a major exception — of the 30 countries that offer birthright citizenship, 29 are in North or South America. The U.S. and Canada are alone among developed nations worldwide that automatically grant citizenship to people born within their territorial jurisdiction".






It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!

Replies

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    I don't have a can of worms emoji.
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 2,702 Senior Member
    Trump can't change this with an executive order.  It is clearly spelled.out in the actual.amendment. 

    I do agree it needs to be changed. In my opinion, To be a citizen at least 1 of your parents must be a U.S. citizen or you go through the naturalization process. I don't have a problem with making it where if the children are under a certain age, say under 5 yo, when the parents gain citizenship then the children gain citizenship at the same time. 
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Well, if one goes back to THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE 13TH AND 14TH AMENDMENTS, then yes, it is time to go back to original intent. And the ORIGINAL INTENT was clearly stated in the arguments for BOTH AMENDMENTS. The Progressives changed that meaning to suit their ends. We are one of only a few countries that have that crazy birth citizenship thing for non citizen parents. Something like 6 countries, and NONE in Europe. It's too complicated for me to bother trying to give a weeks worth of history lesson in one post. The information is readily available. Chinese come here on vacation to give birth to anchor babies, and Russians are using Guam for the same purpose. The issue is complicated, but going back to ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE AMENDMENTS would cure it once and for all.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    I think the point of contention is.

    Can the POTUS establish said original intent with an executive order?

    After that point of contention comes the original intent debate. :can of worms:
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,244 Senior Member
    I also hear the line that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is for muskets since they didn't have AR's back then and never intended us to have them. I would be careful making that argument.

    The 14th Amendment says what it says-- it doesn't matter if I like what it says or not. The idea that a president can nullify a constitutional amendment with an executive order creeps the hell out of me. If you don't like what the amendment says... change the constitution.If not, it opens the door for the next Clinton/Obama/Carter to nullify/modify our rights as they see fit.

    Don't go there. Period.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 12,198 Senior Member
    Well said Jerm
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    Most likely just political chess to inspire support. But he went there, at least rhetorically. The door's open.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    I also hear the line that the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is for muskets since they didn't have AR's back then and never intended us to have them. I would be careful making that argument.

    The 14th Amendment says what it says-- it doesn't matter if I like what it says or not. The idea that a president can nullify a constitutional amendment with an executive order creeps the hell out of me. If you don't like what the amendment says... change the constitution.If not, it opens the door for the next Clinton/Obama/Carter to nullify/modify our rights as they see fit.

    Don't go there. Period.
    Nice straw man there. I demand the source of the musket reference AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT. SHOW ME THE MUSKET REFERENCE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT! If your mind is set in stone and afraid to read the Congressional debates on the 13th and 14th Amendments then that's fine. I don't give a rat's crusty butt either way.

    For anyone else, some not so light reading. There's plenty of information on the debates online. I've provided three sources. Search them out if you dare. I'm NOT your search monkey. If you want to know the truth then look for it. I hear ignorance is bliss! And willful ignorance doubly so! :)

    https://www.lawliberty.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/congress-debates-fourteenth-amendment-1866


    https://www.facinghistory.org/reconstruction-era/congress-debates-fourteenth-amendment







      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    Personally, I think that the President does not have the power to amend the Constitution. The answer to this problem, short of a Constitutional Amendment, is to prevent illegal immigration, which is easily within the power of Congress and the President.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Gonna be interesting.

    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,912 Senior Member
    According to one legal talking head I saw last night, Trump is going to test this law, the administration will be sued, and the issue will be resolved in the Supreme Court sooner, rather than never.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    According to one legal talking head I saw last night, Trump is going to test this law, the administration will be sued, and the issue will be resolved in the Supreme Court sooner, rather than never.
    Actually, I agree with Napolitano on this subject. Trump's declaration that he will change the law by executive fiat is a straw-man, designed to draw attention from the looney left, and bolster his own support and help in the mid-term election. He has already started saying that it might be better for Congress to revoke the birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

    I don't think either would pass muster with the Supreme Court. There is a valid argument to be made by both sides, with the correct answer being dependent on what the court says the definition of 'jurisdiction' is. I think it's likely that at least one of the five so-called 'conservatives' on the Court would say that because illegals are subjected to US and local criminal laws, they are under US jurisdiction.

    Anyway, the whole issue is moot, if the borders are properly secured. Build more wall and streamline the deportation process, and the caravans will stop, along with the majority of the usual border traffic.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    I just wonder if he'll try to make special provisions for Norwegians???👀
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,281 Senior Member
    Those who believe the 14th does not grant citizenship to the children of illegals, tourists, foreign embassy staff, and other foreign nationals, hang their hat on the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which they back up with the speeches and debates given by the drafters of that clause. The original intent and purpose of the 14th was to guarantee citizenship for the recently emancipated slaves, not the children of lawbreaking foreigners 150 years in the future.

    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/the_right_to_birthright_citizenship.html#ixzz5ViE2hHmX 
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
  • 10canyon5310canyon53 Member Posts: 2,122 Senior Member
    I don't think Trump actually believes he can change it by executive order.  This is just another chess move on his part.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement