Trump wants to end birthright citizenship

[Spendulus]

From reddit:.....
>There is no invasion. No one’s coming to get you. There’s nothing at all to worry about.....

One useful idiot there.

Stop this caravan, or the next is 100,000 and then 1,000,000, and then 10,000,000.

SO...

Who is behind it, and what is their motive?

[af_newbie]

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.  

The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship.  It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.

I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted

I know.  I see two issues with it today.

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.

Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.

[Spendulus]

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.  

The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship.  It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.

I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted

I know.  I see two issues with it today.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are c

itizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.

Pregnant women DAILY hit US side border hospitals, have their baby and return to Mexico a few days later. Neither the mom, dad or child "reside" anywhere in the USA. It's no different than if I travel to Mexico and stay in a hotel. I do not reside in Mexico, I am only there for a few days.

Really this should be an issue that left and right can find agreement on.

[af_newbie]

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.  

The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship.  It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.

I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted

I know.  I see two issues with it today.

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.

Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.

Pregnant women DAILY hit US side border hospitals, have their baby and return to Mexico a few days later. Neither the mom, dad or child "reside" anywhere in the USA. It's no different than if I travel to Mexico and stay in a hotel. I do not reside in Mexico, I am only there for a few days.

Really this should be an issue that left and right can find agreement on.

I did not know that.  And what are the US consulates in Mexico doing about it?  I guess these ladies are trekking the hills without any visas.

The US government can fix this issue by not registering such births.  Only a mother with a green card or a passport card should be allowed to register her babies in the Vital Records.

[suchmoon]

Let's say Trump somehow gets dictatorial powers and overturns the 14th. Logistics would be a nightmare. Birth certificates are typically issued by county or state agencies based on the information provided by the hospital/midwife/etc. Neither of which has the full ability to determine the citizenship status of parents, particularly when e.g. parents were born in another state etc. There is no federal agency that would provide proof of citizenship for US-born individuals. That's not even going into the citizen-father-absent-at-birth situations and the like.

It would most likely cause far more trouble for citizens than for foreigners.

Pregnant women DAILY hit US side border hospitals, have their baby and return to Mexico a few days later.

Pregnant women DAILY give birth in the US to the tune of 10-12 thousand on average. How many of those are day-trippers? Just to get a sense of the scale.

[Flying Hellfish]

Pregnant women DAILY give birth in the US to the tune of 10-12 thousand on average. How many of those are day-trippers? Just to get a sense of the scale.

3

But I'm sure infowars has it around 25,000 mothers a day walk across the border to give birth for free in American hospitals!!!!

[Spendulus]

Pregnant women DAILY give birth in the US to the tune of 10-12 thousand on average. How many of those are day-trippers? Just to get a sense of the scale.

3

But I'm sure infowars has it around 25,000 mothers a day walk across the border to give birth for free in American hospitals!!!!

This isn't exactly funny, if you live down in those areas...

An estimate is 40,000 such anchor babies per year.

Numerous "maternity businesses" advise pregnant mothers to hide their pregnancies from officials and even commit visa fraud—lying to customs agents about their true purpose in the U.S.[15] Once they give birth, several 'birth tourism' agencies aid the mothers in defrauding the U.S. hospital, taking advantage of discounts reserved for impoverished American mothers.[16][17] Some mothers will refuse to pay the bill for the medical care received during their hospital stay.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

[suchmoon]

An estimate is 40,000 such anchor babies per year.

So about 1% of total. Doesn't sound like a problem that's worth messing with the constitution and making 4 million US families each year go through federal bureaucracy. And look on the bright side: 40,000 non-abortions. That's gotta outweigh the disadvantages.

I love this quote:

Russian birth tourism to Florida to 'maternity hotels' in the 2010s is documented. Birth tourism packages complete with lodging and medical care delivered in Russian begin at $20,000, and go as high as $84,700 for an apartment in Miami's Trump Tower II complete with a "gold-tiled bathtub and chauffeured Cadillac Escalade."

Is there any grift that Trump doesn't benefit from?

[criptix]

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.  

The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship.  It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.

I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted

I know.  I see two issues with it today.

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.

Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


I think the part "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is in regards to political entities like diplomats.

Even if you are are doing illegal things, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (e.g. detention, sending back, court process etc) - except you have something like diplomatic immunity.

[philipma1957]

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.  

The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship.  It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.

I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted

I know.  I see two issues with it today.

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.

Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.

Almost right  since they entered illegally they are subject to deportation. This will be interesting to see if the new Supreme Court rules an undocumented alien giving birth in the USA has a direct link to the baby.

It is physical link and that is the umbilical cord. So since the baby is attached to the mother and the mother has no official status does this mean the baby is undocumented and subject to trumps new proposed restriction.

Clever idea that would lose in a liberal  supreme  court.
Now that the court is not liberal it could fly.

Their have been legal decisions that favor trumps idea.
These would be the ones that let USA hold undocumented aliens in Cuba and waterboard them.

They eventually stopped practice but principle of putting an undocumented in Cuba was and is still allowed.

Well now you know why they let the guy that likes beer get on the court.

Personally it is very interesting idea I wonder how it will play out in court.

[af_newbie]

The 14th amendment has been used incorrectly.  People who were born in the US and who do not reside the US should never have been given citizenships.  

The 14th amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship.  It was used correctly to give citizenship to anyone born in this country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens or slaves or whatever.

I'm not saying a pregnant woman from another country should be able to fly to the US in 2018 and have a kid who gets automatic citizenship, but that is the way the constitution is worded... and as mentioned before, there is over 100 years of precedent to overturn if you want to change the way the law is interpreted

I know.  I see two issues with it today.

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.

Foreigners and their children without legal status are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor do they reside (legally) in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


I think the part "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is in regards to political entities like diplomats.

Even if you are doing illegal things, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the US (e.g. detention, sending back, court process etc) - except you have something like diplomatic immunity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
In that case, the parents were "legally domiciled" in the US.

Ok, what about the "wherein they reside"?  Do babies whose mothers came to the US few days (weeks) before delivery, reside in the US?

Canadian snowbirds who legally stay in the US for 5 months a year, do not reside in the US.  They just visit for 5 months.

Mothers who are in the country illegally should be arrested at the time when they try to register their baby's birth.  End of story.

I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.

[suchmoon]

I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.

Maybe not. This will probably go the way of the 10% tax cut that we were supposed to get like right now. By this time next week there will be another distraction, e.g. hysterical screams of election fraud.

[Flying Hellfish]

I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.

Maybe not.

Trump has already forgotten about it, he's desperately throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks everyday looking for anything that will bring out his base voters. 

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1057208249571786753

Exclusive: Trump plans to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO."

Obviously lying is involved ("We’re the only country in the world...") but also there is that pesky 14th amendment:

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.

Which Trump thinks he can overturn with an executive order. Good thing he has that beer fan dude on the SCOTUS now.

FHF, you gotta make room in your basement for me when I get deported LOL.

I don't even read it, simple he changes that what else will they change ? take away officially the first amendment or maybe the second first? who cares, another stupid idea, who cares in the volume there is genius and how to get to the genius trump without having to experience some lower quality ideas from time to time? the real "political" issue: marsha blackburns vs taylor swift...

if we lose taylor, better stop. what is really going on in Tennessee? it has nothing to do with trump... and still... this is critical.

I guess we'll see how this will play out in the Supreme Court.

Maybe not.

Trump has already forgotten about it, he's desperately throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks everyday looking for anything that will bring out his base voters. 

this is what experienced leader have the luxury to be able to do... remember it isn't HIS idea, just AN idea... how can you possess AN idea? however HIS towers, HIS presidency, big diff.

my flow is short : taiwan, crispr-cas9 (gen editing), expansion in south america... way more interesting, but isn't it dangerous to wake a public in trance too brutally to what is going on? we don't want a bolshoi incident...

question: does the offspring of a terrorist cell get citizenship? ehehehe... there are no ends to those discussion and when badeckers put is wicked wrapped mind around the subject, just reading his post will hurt you mentally .

[dogtana]

If US tax their citizens worldwide, no matter where they reside, isn't there mutual benefit to birthright citizenship? On the other hand it would makes sense to renounce such citizenship if one does not plan to live in US, hold only US citizenship and pay the taxes only there.

[Spendulus]

An estimate is 40,000 such anchor babies per year.

So about 1% of total. Doesn't sound like a problem that's worth messing with the constitution and making 4 million US families each year go through federal bureaucracy. And look on the bright side: 40,000 non-abortions. That's gotta outweigh the disadvantages.....

That's not the perspective of people that live in a county that's overwhelmed with the problem.

But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.

[bluefirecorp_]

I guess we gotta send Trump back to where he came from... oh wait, he's a 'white' immigrant, which makes him okay.

[suchmoon]

That's not the perspective of people that live in a county that's overwhelmed with the problem.

But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.

I love your attempt to put me into some category that's not supposed to have a "perspective" or feel "implications". How about you address the actual topic instead of who and how disagrees with you.

Trash-canning the constitution isn't solving anything and would likely waste billions of tax dollars and put 4 million families through unnecessary trouble for a minuscule benefit. Trump is already sending 5000 troops to the border, are you saying he can't stop ~100 pregnant women from crossing the border each day? 50 soldiers per woman, sounds doable.

[TECSHARE]

That's not the perspective of people that live in a county that's overwhelmed with the problem.

But yours is a common attitude, for people far removed from the everyday implications of it.

I love your attempt to put me into some category that's not supposed to have a "perspective" or feel "implications". How about you address the actual topic instead of who and how disagrees with you.

Trash-canning the constitution isn't solving anything and would likely waste billions of tax dollars and put 4 million families through unnecessary trouble for a minuscule benefit. Trump is already sending 5000 troops to the border, are you saying he can't stop ~100 pregnant women from crossing the border each day? 50 soldiers per woman, sounds doable.

I love how the left are constitutionalists all of a sudden xD

Nothing you said is credible let alone sourced. That is except for the 5000 troops on the border. That is happening. The 14th amendment was never meant to be interpreted this way.

[suchmoon]

I love how the left are constitutionalists all of a sudden xD

Nothing you said is credible let alone sourced. That is except for the 5000 troops on the border. That is happening. The 14th amendment was never meant to be interpreted this way.

Yeah it's a shame that nobody noticed this mistake for 150 years.

Or perhaps it was meant to be interpreted that way and multiple court cases and multiple immigration laws based on the 14th amendment perhaps mean a bit more than fringe xenophobic talking points.