Debunking 4 Big Errors Made in Lawsuit to Stop Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Order
The lawsuit seeking to stop Trump’s birthright citizenship order from going into effect has arguments offered that are largely terrible.
nice opinion piece of birth right citizenship
- Thread starter BillytheC
- Start date
Hopefully they can stop this:
travelohlic.com
China has been sending them over here to give birth for decades.
Birth Tourism: Uncovering the Hidden Secrets
Birth tourism, also known as maternity tourism, refers to the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth there. This allows the
travelohlic.com
Ummmmm regardless of how that article tries to "explain" it, and how folks want it fixed. The only way to do so is to repeal the 14th Amendment. For a party that hollers that "abortion isnt stated in the Constitution", its crazy the mental gymnastics this article is doing. The language is crystal clear...
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"All persons born...." there is no "interpretation" of this clear language.
Is preggo tourism an issue?
Yes, if so stop granting travel visas to preggos. Make them take a preggo test at the application appointment.
Or ratify a new amendment that states as of the date of the ratification any one born in the US, after the date of the ratification of said amendment, is not a US citizen unless they have at least 1 parent born in the US to a US parent or a parent that was a naturalized US citizen prior to the ratification of this Amendmet. Then include the rest of the 14th Amendment language.
That's how you fix it. Otherwise any law outlawing birthright citizenship is per se unconstitutional.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"All persons born...." there is no "interpretation" of this clear language.
Is preggo tourism an issue?
Yes, if so stop granting travel visas to preggos. Make them take a preggo test at the application appointment.
Or ratify a new amendment that states as of the date of the ratification any one born in the US, after the date of the ratification of said amendment, is not a US citizen unless they have at least 1 parent born in the US to a US parent or a parent that was a naturalized US citizen prior to the ratification of this Amendmet. Then include the rest of the 14th Amendment language.
That's how you fix it. Otherwise any law outlawing birthright citizenship is per se unconstitutional.
You are leaving out the MOST important part of the first sentence:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
IF the parent is here illegally, they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and so it goes to follow, any child born while the parents are here illegally would not be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
If you look into the history and the intention of the 14th Amendment, it was to ensure that all the slaves, who were brought here against their will, and any child they might have had while they were here, would become citizens.
BC, you have got to stop listening to those folks with GOOGLE University JDs....😉
#1. That is incorrect and a stretch. 1. If the parents are here, illegally or not they a subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States. If what you are saying, then why is the guy who killed LiRi, sitting in jail convicted of a crime? Or folks sitting in Fed Pens convicted of rico, drug traffic, murder etc. If what you said is true, then their cases should be dismissed as the US has no jurisdiction. 2. US citizens in foreign countries that commit certain crimes can be arrested/or the US can request an arrest and extradited to the US, if not extradited then a standing arrest warrant is issued, or non-US citizens that commit crimes against the US in foreign countries that are arrested and prosecuted here. Or better yet, drug runners arrested by the Coast Guard in the Gulf of Mexico/the Pacific/Carribean sea/Atlantic ocen, outside the 100mile range of US waters, that are brought in and prosecuted. If what you're suggesting is correct, there are tons of folks in US fed pens illegally.
2. I know why it was created, it doesn't matter. The language is clear. If it were to only apply to children and decendants of former slaves, logically there are a whole bunch or "illegal" kids in this country. How many, Jewish, italian, irish, polish, etc arrived here after the 1860s who before being naturalized had those "anchor" babies? If what your suggesting is true, a whole bunch of folks need to be deported.
3. The party that essentially overturned Roe v Wade on the strict reading of the Constitution, i.e. abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, can't now start talking about the original intent of those who wrote it. Kind of hypocritical don't you think?
Last edited:
