[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Joe Biden Said He Believes All Women. Does He Believe Tara Reade?

Who is Thomas Massie? ‘Masshole’ infuriates DC with coronavirus aid stunt

The NIH had 13 years to prepare for coronavirus but still didn't

Fighting Coronaphobia?

Like Cordwood

Dylan Sings Truth About the JFK Assassination

Marvel introduces superheros “Snowflake” and “Safespace” (and more Absurdity)

University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7’s Collapse on 9/11

Cops Ticket, Arrest Disabled Woman for Legally Riding Her Assistive Scooter on the Sidewalk

Unhinged AcTor Michael RapaporT ... Goes AfTer Barron Trump --- in UnThinkably Evil Tirade

The Road to Coronavirus Hell Was Paved by Evangelicals

Johns Hopkins Covid-19 tracking site (Interactive Map)

Coronavirus - new Lays Champions League commercial (funny edit)

Video of Cop Shooting Tiny Chihuahua So Bad, Cop Found Guilty of Animal Cruelty

Our President

Beware a Government of Fear

Former Vice President Joe Biden Keeps Pushing Misinformation About Coronavirus. Here Are 5 Examples

NYPD is Raiding Sleeping Truckers Hauling Supplies During Outbreak, Impounding Cargo

Massive $6 Trillion Coronavirus Stimulus Package a ‘Robbery in Progress’ Critics Warn

As 911 Gets Calls for Coughing Neighbors, Hotline Allows People to Snitch to Govt During Outbreak

Two Hundred and Thirty Years of Rights and Liberties Shredded: Why I Oppose The Lockdown

Coronavirus Patent (2007)

Good Vibrations (The Fendertones cover)

Amid COVID-19 Outbreak, Arrests Plummet, Departments Close and Chaos Does NOT Ensue

Is Wearing a Face Mask in Public To Ward Off COVID-19 a Crime?

Iconic plant's end spells doom for struggling coal industry

The Netherlands Is Letting People Get Sick to Beat Coronavirus

A Pandemic Movie as “Predictive Programming”

“This Too Shall Pass”: 3 Things to Remember Amid Coronavirus Panic

Calling Those Who Oppose Totalitarian Covid-19 Measures

Italian priest dies of coronavirus after giving respirator to younger patient

Twin Black Brothers Accused of Robbing Their Own Home, Beaten, Arrested in Their Yard

Suspending the Constitution: Police State Uses Crises to Expand Its Lockdown Powers

Pot Shops Called “Essential Infrastructure” As Commerce Shuts For Coronavirus

The Flat Curve

Fake News Hacks Claim Man Died After Ingesting Chloroquine ‘Because of Trump’ – Leaves Out the Fact He Actually Drank Koi Pond Cleaner Fake News Hacks Claim Man Died After Ingesting Chloroquine ‘Because of Trump’ – Leaves Out the Fact He Actually Dra

When CNN tells you not to stockpile guns or ammo, you should stockpile guns and ammo

No Cops to Save You, but Too Bad You Couldn’t Get a Gun to Protect Yourself

Pandemic: The Invention Of A Disease Called Fear

Liberty and the Coronavirus: Not An Either/Or Proposition

FARRELL: SpygaTe ... Could Make WaTergate Look Like ... A Third-RaTe Burglary

Hobby Lobby owner refuses to close stores during pandemic because God allegedly spoke to his wife

‘If You’re Gonna File a Complaint, We’ll Just Charge You’—Tyrant Cop Arrests Good Samaritan

With COVID-19, That Which Is Not Forbidden Is Mandatory—and Subsidized

How Coronavirus Cases in The U.S. Are Going to Explode Out of Nowhere

From Quarantine To Tyranny To Rebellion: Where Is The Line In The Sand?

The Cat Leaves The Bag

Calling Paraclete


“Travel Papers” and the Pandemic Patriot Act 2.0

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles

Title: Trump May Issue Exec Order Ending Citizenship For Babies Of Illegal Immigrants: Calls It ‘Frankly Ridiculous’
Source: DailyWire
URL Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/5090 ... nding-citizenship-hank-berrien
Published: Aug 22, 2019
Author: Hank Berrien
Post Date: 2019-08-22 11:07:24 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 309
Comments: 29

On Wednesday, President Trump stated that he is thinking of issuing an executive order that would prevent the children born on American soil to illegal immigrants from gaining automatic American citizenship, calling so-called “birthright citizenship” “frankly ridiculous.”

Trump told reporters, “Birthright citizenship — where you have a baby in our land, walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations — the baby is now a U.S. citizen. We’re looking at it very, very seriously.” When he was apprised that one reporter knew of Trump’s intent to go forward with an executive order, which he had mentioned in 2018, he responded, ‘‘I don’t know how you found that out, but that’s very good. We’re looking at birthright citizenship very seriously. It’s frankly ridiculous.”

In October 2018, speaking to Axios, Trump stated, “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end.” When interviewer Jonathan Swan asked whether he had “talked about it with counsel,” Trump answered, “Yeah, I have.” He was then asked where in the process he was, prompting Trump to reply, “It’s in the process; it will happen … an executive order, that’s what you’re talking about … I didn’t think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. Jonathan, I’m impressed.”

In 2010, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that roughly 8% of children born in the United States were born to illegal immigrants, a total of 340,000 babies.

In 1993, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), introduced the ‘‘Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993.” As even left-leaning Politifact admitted, “Section 1001, entitled ‘Basis of Citizenship Clarified,’ said, in effect, that children born in United States to parents who are illegal immigrants would not become U.S. citizens. And just in case there was any confusion about the matter, a press release that Reid’s office issued a day later states that the bill ‘clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen.’ Five years later, Reid switched his position, saying he was “embarrassed that I made such a proposal.”

Defenders of birthright citizenship claim that the 14th Amendment supports their position. The Amendment states, “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.”

Vice President Mike Pence has differed, saying in 2018, “We all cherish the language of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether the language of the 14th Amendment — ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ — applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally.”

Poster Comment:

Trump is still charging hard on his biggest single issue as a pol. He hasn't settled for the status quo at all. I like that.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know
what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

#2. To: Tooconservative (#0)

The Repugant and demoncrap elites will fight this with everything they have.

So just another day in America!

14th was made for Slaves and should be left at that. No other nation upon this earth does such a thing! We are still paying the price for slavery! Will it ever end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Justified  posted on  2019-08-22   12:57:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#5. To: Justified, Tooconservative (#2)

14th was made for Slaves and should be left at that.

Wrong, as clearly and explicitly demonstrated the by contemporary congressional debate on the amendment.

No other nation upon this earth does such a thing!



Jus soli, meaning "right of the soil", commonly referred to as birthright citizenship in the United States, is the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.

Jus soli was part of the English common law, in contrast to jus sanguinis, which derives from the Roman law that influenced the civil-law systems of continental Europe. Jus soli is the predominant rule in the Americas, but it is rare elsewhere. Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.

Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants.

Jus soli in many cases helps prevent statelessness. Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are obligated to grant nationality to persons born in their territory who would otherwise become stateless persons. The American Convention on Human Rights similarly provides that "Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality."

National laws

Lex soli is a law used in practice to regulate who and under what circumstances an individual can assert the right of jus soli. Most states provide a specific lex soli—in application of the respective jus soli—and it is the most common means of acquiring nationality. However, a frequent exception to lex soli is imposed when a child is born to a parent in the diplomatic or consular service of another state on a mission to the state in question.

Unrestricted jus soli

  • Antigua and Barbuda: Guaranteed by the Constitution.
  • Argentina
  • Barbados: Guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Barbados Ministry of Labour & Immigration recently proposed ending automatic birthright citizenship.
  • Belize
  • Bolivia
  • Brazil (requires that the foreign parents are not working for their country's government in Brazil by the time the child is born).
  • Canada: Subsection 3(2) of the Act states that Canadian citizenship by birth in Canada is not granted to a child born in Canada if neither parent was a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and either parent was a diplomat, in service to a diplomat, or employed by an international agency of equal status to a diplomat. However, if neither parents were diplomats, the nationality or immigration status of the parents do not matter. Some Conservative Party members wish to end birthright citizenship in Canada to the children of tourists and unauthorized immigrants.
  • Chad (The choice to take Chadian citizenship, or that of the parents is made at 18 years of age.)
  • Chile
  • Costa Rica (Jus sangui requires registration with the Costa Rican government before the age of twenty-five)
  • Dominica
  • Ecuador
  • El Salvador
  • Fiji
  • Grenada
  • Guatemala
  • Guyana
  • Honduras
  • Jamaica
  • Lesotho
  • Mexico
  • Nicaragua
  • Pakistan
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru (registration required at 18 years of age)
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Tanzania: Per the Tanzania Citizenship Act of 1995, "any child born within the borders of the United Republic of Tanzania, on or after Union Day, 26 April 1964, is granted citizenship of Tanzania, except for children of foreign diplomats."
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Tuvalu
  • United States: The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, provides: "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."[37] The concept of birthright citizenship applying to the child born of a foreign national in the country without proper credentials has never been formally litigated, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) allowed the government to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children only in the cases of children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory, and thus this decision is most often interpreted as barring the government from denying citizenship to a U.S.-born person based on the alienage of his or her parents.[38][39] (see United States nationality law).
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela

    nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-22   16:07:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

    #7. To: nolu chan (#5)

    The only thing the USSC said in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen.

    misterwhite  posted on  2019-08-22   16:46:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

    #12. To: misterwhite (#7)

    The only thing the USSC said in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen.

    This is pure unsupported birther nonsense.

    The Supreme Court was very clear in what it stated:

    [C]itizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

    649 U.S. 702

    "The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the Emperor of China. . . . The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says,"

    "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."

    "These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. It is accordingly enacted, by § 1977 of the Revised Statutes, that"

    "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

    649 U.S. 695

    That the question before the court was clearly framed is shown by the briefs. The brief of appellant provided:

    This is an appeal from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and is taken from the judgment of that court, discharging the respondent on habeas corpus cum causa from the custody of the collector of port of San Francisco, who refused to permit the respondent to land in the United States for the reason that he is a Chinese laborer and within the inhibitory provisions of the Chinese exclusion act. The respondent claimed exemption from that act upon the ground that he was born within the United States, and thereby becase ipso facto a citizen thereof. The Government, while conceding the fact of birth, denied the conclusion of citizenship in that respect, contending that as the respondent was born of alien parents, to wit, subjects of the Emperor of China, he was at birth a subject of China, claimed by that nation to be such, and therefore was not when born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning and intent of the Constitution.

    Appellant's Brief at 39.

    That was the losing side whose argument was rejected. The brief of Wong Kim Ark, the winning side provided:

    The single question presented upon this appeal is this: Are the children born in this country of alien residents not connected with the diplomatic service citizens of the United States?

    Respondent's Brief at 4. This was from the brief of the winning side. The court answered this question in the affirmative.

    nolu chan  posted on  2019-08-22   20:13:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

    #27. To: nolu chan (#12)

    The only thing the USSC said in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen.

    This is pure unsupported birther nonsense.

    You wouldn't happen to be a tiny bit biased in favor of citizenship for illegals,would you,Bubba?

    sneakypete  posted on  2019-08-24   10:53:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

    Replies to Comment # 27.

            There are no replies to Comment # 27.

    End Trace Mode for Comment # 27.

    TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

    [Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

    Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com