| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Pres. Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship |
| 2019-08-23 |
| WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that his administration was seriously looking at ending the right of citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens and people who immigrated to the United States illegally. "We’re looking at that very seriously, birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby - congratulations, the baby is now a U.S. citizen. ... It’s frankly ridiculous," Trump told reporters outside the White House. Trump has made cracking down on immigration a central plank of his presidency and re-election campaign, but many of the administration’s sweeping rule changes and executive orders have been stymied by the courts. The Republican president had told Axios news website in October 2018 that he would end "birthright citizenship" through an executive order. Experts have said such a move would run afoul of the U.S. Constitution. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #14 As a lifetime resident of San Diego, I'm well aware of the practice |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-08-23 20:20 |
| #13 Actually, I think my question was tied more to motive, not the facts you showed (and thanks for that). Anchor babies are dropped for family life improvements (if not just an accident of timing) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-08-23 20:17 |
| #12 I did answer it: I don't know. You made an assertion, and asked to be enlightened if you were wrong. So I did. You want to know about welfare, look it up yourself. You and Frank seem to think I posted a comment to make a political point, but I did not. A while back I was talking with a colleague who thought that ALL countries granted birthright citizenship. I sent him the same link. |
| Posted by: Cochiti 2019-08-23 20:03 |
| #11 Thanks Cochiti, this is interesting information. Also can you answer frank's question please? |
| Posted by: Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2019-08-23 19:31 |
| #10 Dunno. Canada? But that was not what SACFI was asserting. (I figure a fellow who calls himself "Seeking a Cure for Ignorance", yet exhibits ignorance on a topic -- especially a topic so easily researched -- ought to be able to withstand a certain amount of ribbing.) |
| Posted by: Cochiti 2019-08-23 19:28 |
| #9 Thanks, Cooch. Any of those grant welfare and other benefits equal to the US? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2019-08-23 19:11 |
| #8 AFAIK, no other country grant citizenship to just because they happen to be born there. A cure for your ignorance on this topic. |
| Posted by: Cochiti 2019-08-23 19:02 |
| #7 "By that logic neither are people in this country illegally," No, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means that U.S. law applies to you, that you can be prosecuted and tried. Diplomats (and their children born in the U.S.) can't be (they can only be declared persona non grata and forced to leave the country), but of course illegal immigrants can (and are) be prosecuted for violating U.S. law. Every other interpretation is just absurd and even the most conservative Supreme Court would reject it. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2019-08-23 16:19 |
| #6 With Roberts on the bench, it might be wise to wait until RBG can be replaced. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2019-08-23 11:05 |
| #5 Good idea. Do it. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2019-08-23 08:54 |
| #4 I think the key is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The children born to diplomatic personnel assigned to the US do not become American citizens. Because their parents are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. By that logic neither are people in this country illegally, so their children should not become citizens at birth. I think Trump is going to do this to force a SCOTUS decision once and for all. |
| Posted by: Hupolush Ulereling8010 2019-08-23 08:37 |
| #3 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. 14th Amendment The intent was that certain states could not declare newly liberated slaves as non-citizens and thus denied the rights of citizens. Everything else is 'judicial interpretation'. This was before we ended up in the latter half of the 20th Century with a million troops and families deployed across the world birthing in Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. There is no logic to those born 'over there' not to be classified as foreign by this definition. If bloodline is not the consideration in births here, then bloodline is not a consideration over there. It's all rationalization, no principle. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2019-08-23 06:40 |
| #2 I think the 14th Amendment allows it, but your parents have to be legal migrants, Visa holders, with no criminal records, and gainfully employed. Of course Obama appointees, communal minded hispanic judges and bureaucrats may have looked at only the first part of that law for decades. |
| Posted by: Dron66046 2019-08-23 04:59 |
| #1 About time, AFAIK, no other country grant citizenship to just because they happen to be born there. There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that grant birthright citizens. If I'm wrong, please politely enlighten me. |
| Posted by: Seeking Cure For Ignorance 2019-08-23 03:48 |