Trump Wants To End Birthright Citizenship

Trying to rally his base.

I found this Asian blog article an interesting PoV read. It's about the world situation (re: citizenship by birth) in general:

[quote] If you live in the United States, you have probably heard the term “anchor baby” positioned in a bad light ... The United States and Canada are the only “first world countries” that offer unconditional citizenship to children born in the territory.

[quote] Here in Asia, Mainland Chinese parents often seek to give birth in Hong Kong to obtain “right of abode” for their children. (Hong Kongers are Chinese citizens, but with special privileges to reside in Hong Kong.)

[quote] Of course, we know that [bold]the United States offers such citizenship for the same reasons ancient Rome did: to increase the number of US tax-payers needed to pay off the country’s catastrophic debts.[/bold]

[quote] [bold]Giving birth to a child in the United States is setting them up for a lifetime of taxes which they can’t even get out of without renouncing their citizenship. That means even opening a bank account for their college savings will require you to file paperwork with the US government.[/bold]

[quote] [bold]10 years ago, Ireland amended their constitution to end their practice as the last European country offering unconditional citizenship rights to children born to 2 foreign parents. Malta had amended their earlier, too. Other countries, such as Australia, have similarly tightened their laws.[/bold]

[quote] Except for a few exceptions, almost all the countries that offer citizenship by birth are in Latin America: 1. Argentina 2. Belize 3. Bolivia 4. Brazil 5. Canada 6. Costa Rica 7. Dominica 8. Ecuador 9. El Salvador 10. Fiji 11. Grenada 12. Guatemala 13. Guyana 14. Honduras 15. Jamaica 16. Mexico 17. Nicaragua 18. Pakistan 19. Panama 20. Paraguay 21. Peru 22. St. Kitts and Nevis 23. St. Lucia 24. St. Vincent and the Grenadines 25. Trinidad and Tobago 26. Tuvalu 27. United States 28. Uruguay 29. Venezuela.

unconstitutional

Elections have consequences.

America and Canada are the last Western countries still providing birthright citizenship. As R1 pointed out, the only countries offering birthright citizenship are third-world, where, in most cases, you can purchase citizenship for a price.

^^^^ R2, not R1 ^^^^

Yes, it's all about future taxpayers.

One thing I'm not clear on - a baby is born on US soil, but then the parents go back to their native country shortly afterward. The child grows up in that country and never again enters the US. Would he/she still be required to pay American taxes? I'm sure a poster here would know the answer to that.

The sooner he ends it the better. You can't pull this bullshit in any country in Europe because they don't allow it. The sooner we join them the better.

The easiest places in the world to get citizenship or residency, from Thailand to St. Lucia

You say you'll change the constitution

well you know

we all wanna change your head

I don't think an executive order supersedes the constitution.

As painful as it is to admit, this is one thing Trump is right on.

I'm sure it's real painful for you R12. You're a deplorable. A backwards deplorable.

So this means we're kicking Melania and Barron out right?

Trump needs to get his chubby fingers off the Constitution.

Well if Trump just wants to rewrite the Constitution, how about changing the 2nd amendment?

You sound very intelligent and offer a cogent and well-presented defense of the policy R13.

I agree with him. It's the only issue I agree with him about. And probably more than half the country feels this way. I think this will swing the mid terms back to the republicans

I've always said, the Democrats need to listen to the people because the average citizen is against illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities and all the rest of that type of nonsense. And if the Dems did that, they would win every election. But these are the dems we're talking about. They don't give 2 fucks about what the people want. They just want to be bogged down on social justice bullshit instead of the real issues that affect Americans

This entire idea of citizenship is ridiculous. So, you happened to be born 500 miles in this or that direction. Or ancestors you never met happened to be born in this or that no longer even existent jurisdiction. The whole concept is absurd. We're all Earthlings and the same rights and responsibilities should apply to everyone everywhere within the atmosphere.

r12 didn't offer a good criticism of it either r17

And here come the deplorables pretending to be democrats and truly believing they have people fooled.

Birthright citizenship is helpful on several fronts, not the least of which is making it easier for the US to attract rare, and high skilled labor. Much easier to settle here long term when the legal status of your child will never be in question. Additionally it gives people who grow up here and use benefits like public education to stay and become tax payers.

It's not unique to the US, Canada and Mexico also do it. And Europe would if they didn't already have freedom of movement across the continent. If Brexit ever does actually go into effect England will need to enact something similar to keep workers in the country

[quote] a baby is born on US soil, but then the parents go back to their native country shortly afterward. The child grows up in that country and never again enters the US. Would he/she still be required to pay American taxes?

R7, such people are called "Accidental Americans". And it seems they're totally screwed as far as taxes go. Here's a 2018 news story about a poor French-American guy who's paid $61k in legal fees alone (!) to resolve this SNAFU fucked-up situation:

[quote] 'Accidental Americans' living abroad fight tax bill from Uncle Sam. [bold]Born in the U.S., they might have never lived in the United States as adults but now they are required to pay back taxes[/bold] — and claiming it's unfair.

[quote] Tom Wallis was born here and has spent his entire life in France, but it turns out that the 40-year-old entrepreneur from Grenoble owes tens of thousands of dollars in taxes to the United States. Wallis' mother was French, but he holds U.S. citizenship through his American father. He had previously visited his father's family in the U.S., but other than that he says he has no real connection to the country.

[quote] But 3 years ago, Wallis found out he was still subject to U.S. tax law. He is one of potentially thousands of "accidental Americans" around the world — U.S. citizens who neither live in the country nor have any real ties to the United States. Under a citizenship-based taxation system in place in the United States, people like Wallis are subject to U.S. taxes on their global income, no matter where they live.

[quote] Wallis hired lawyers to fill out the necessary paperwork to try to comply with the U.S. tax authority, but when his legal fees reached over $61,000 (50,000 euros), he says he had to stop the process. "It was too much," he said. [bold]His lawyers told him he would owe $115,000 in U.S. taxes after he sold his business in 2013, even though he had paid a tax on the sale in France. He says he won't pay ... "There is no way," Wallis said, ... "I can't accept it ... I think it's a robbery. I won't pay. Even if I have to go to jail, I won't pay it for sure because it's too unfair."

[quote] There has been a growing movement by "accidental Americans," particularly in France, to try to get U.S. authorities to realize the burden their American citizenship is adding to their lives. Many are hoping that French President Emmanuel Macron will raise the issue during his state visit to the U.S. this week.

[quote] [bold]Unlike other advanced nations, the United States enforces a tax system based on citizenship rather than residency.[/bold] In 2010, Congress enacted the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, also known as FATCA, to crack down on tax evasion by Americans with financial assets abroad after a Swiss bank scandal showed U.S. taxpayers hid millions of dollars overseas. [bold]The law requires foreign banks to report about financial accounts held by U.S. citizens to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the United States. As a result, many "accidental Americans" learned they may owe taxes in the United States after getting contacted by the banks in their home countries.[/bold]

[quote] Fabien Lehagre, 33, a commercial manager, found himself in that exact situation. Born in Mountain View, California, in 1984 to a French father and a Singaporean-American mother, Lehagre was 2 when his parents divorced and he and his father moved to France. In 2014, his French bank contacted him asking for his U.S. tax identification number. Thinking it was a mistake, Lehagre ignored the request despite repeated warnings. [bold]The requests didn't stop. He did some research and discovered that he was also an "accidental American" and could face a looming tax bill from the United States. Lehagre, who doesn't speak English, says although he has only lived in the United States for a short time as a toddler, never studied there, voted or paid taxes, he was being "forced into the administrative system that obliges [him] to fill out forms, pay a lawyer and have [his] bank accounts scrutinized."[/bold]

R22 It's not as bad as it sounds IF you never have a reason to enter the US again. Most countries don't cooperate with US withholding for citizens that have never lived there so you can just not pay it. The second you want to move to the US though it's a problem

Can you get out from U.S. taxes simply by renouncing your U.S. citizenship?

[quote]Much easier to settle here long term when the legal status of your child will never be in question. Additionally it gives people who grow up here and use benefits like public education to stay and become tax payers. It's not unique to the US, Canada and Mexico also do it. And Europe would if they didn't already have freedom of movement across the continent.

Another deplorable shoveling complete horseshit. Europe had no trouble attracting highly-skilled labour long before the CM or the EU, even though they do not provide citizenship. What they do provide is residency, which entitles residents to education, health and social services.

R23, I've had a friend in London incessantly harassed by his bank to file US tax returns. Some big-name international banks are more aggressively OCD and subservient to the IRS than others. One might not end up in US prison for non-payment of taxes, but it can definitely sour your relationship with your bank.

Can it affect your credit score as well?

R24 Yes, but even if you never plan to live in the US, US citizenship is pretty awesome. Visa free travel to 174 countries. Access to high quality embassies all around the world. I would never renounce it if I could avoid it

R24, I think you'd still be liable for any back taxes accruing up to the date you effectively terminate your citizenship. You won't be liable to pay any future taxes from that point, but back taxes are still an outstanding debt to the IRS.

The real issue is that the Orange Turd thinks he is a king and can just ignore the Constitution

[quote] Visa free travel to 174 countries.

Many tax-haven jurisdictions are offering the same now. Reportedly, lots of rich people are applying for St. Kitts citizenship - it offers global visa-free travel.

Anchor babies.

I'm a US citizen who hasn't lived in the US in 45 years. Never heard from the IRS in all that time.

As far as "high quality embassies", obviously you haven't had to deal with them. A foreign posting is considered a privilege and a paid holiday. Dealing with Americans with problems is not real high on the agenda.

Everyone who agrees with Trump on this is fucking racist. This is about brown people. If caravans of Norwegians were headed our way, no one would give a fuck.

This is a desperate attempt to rile up the base before the midterm elections. Nothing but a distraction, they desperately want to change the conversation to this instead of what is happening in the country.

Did you ever come back to the US e.g. for a holiday, R32? Did border officials ask you any questions?

Will T-Rump still be against birthright citizenship when he realizes how much it'll affect his income from Russian birth tourism on his Miami properties, or will he suck it up and just go further in hock to the oligarchs (and their American babies)?

I don't understand why Hispanics who are citizens aren't voting! Trump will eventually come for them too. He has already hinted at it.

This is red meat for his base.. to pump up votes.

[quote]I don't understand why Hispanics who are citizens aren't voting!

They are voting, often against their best interests because of Jesus and homophobia which is rampant in hispanic culture.

You can only travel to 116 countries visa-free with a US passport. The number only goes up when you include countries with e-visa and/or visa on arrival options. Yes, a visa on arrival is basically a formality and just a little extra time at an airport or border crossing, but it is still not visa free entry!

R35 Been back several times, last time 2 years ago. No one has ever asked because Immigration and Customs have zip to do with the IRS.

R14 I immediately thought the same thing. What was Melanie's US citizenship status when Barron was born????

Because r37 Hispanics is a broad term covering many groups some of whom thinks they’re better than others. That would go for some South American countries and Cuba. They tend to be republicans and look down on Mexicans.

I agree with R34.

I THINK Elizabeth Taylor renounced her American citizenship for tax reasons and then took it back later when she decided to live in the US again.

Trump is addressing issues that are of concern to the American voter. Unlike R33, whose sole concern is spewing pejoratives at anyone she disagrees with.

There was a whole thing with Boris Johnson, then Mayor Of London who was born in the USA and left as an infant, having American tax demands. Not sure how it worked out.

Actually, seems he paid up.

[quote] And Europe would do it [birthright citizenship] if they didn't already have freedom of movement across the continent. If Brexit ever does actually go into effect England will need to enact something similar to keep workers in the country.

R21, you're confusing 2 very different things. Citizenship is completely different from Freedom of Movement.

Citizenship = inalienable right to vote in federal, state and local elections, right to serve in the armed forces and secret services, right to work in political parties, as legal courtroom officials (judges, prosecutors, etc) and be elected as leader of the country, right to local benefits for citizens (unemployment benefits, housing benefits), etc.

Freedom of Movement = right to move around to live in different places and work non-state jobs there. Very limited rights compared to citizens.

R46 Youre an idiot if you think the average american voter gives a rats ass about birthright citizenship

R49 Never assume. You will invariably ERR.

OP is being a racist fuck over on the "Brazil Just Elected Hitler" thread. He's clearly pro Trump and in favor of this policy.

That was my thought, r36. Trump hotels offer a luxury birth package specifically geared to wealthy-as-shit Russians to have their baby on US soil so it can have citizenship. They’ll provide all the paperwork plus a private doctor and top-quality everything and you can go back home once the US citizen baby is born.

He’s been profiting off the very thing he says is the problem. No surprise at all.

This issue and the current movement of troops to the border with Mexico to stop the "invasion" will doom the midterms for Dems. Sad to see this country become a shit hole in such short order.

[quote]What was Melanie's US citizenship status when Barron was born????

It doesn’t matter, because his father is a US citizen. Barron is not an anchor baby.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to end birthright citizenship, but I think if it’s going to be done, it needs to part of a larger comprehensive immigration reform.

As has been pointed out, we’re one of the only countries that still allows it. I may be mistaken, but I thought Canada only extends birthright citizenship to those in the country legally (like on a visa) - Canadian DL’rs can you confirm or deny?

To me, citizenship is a privilege with both rights and responsibilities - so like immigration, birthright citizenship needs to be looked at, reformed, tightened up, tweaked, etc.. Just my two cents. Anyway, if tRump does issue an EO on this, it will wind up in the courts for months, maybe years as the language in the Constitution is loose enough to allow for interpretation as either “anyone native born” or it can be taken as born to those legally in the country. Regardless, I’m sure it will be a shitshow all around.

RE: “accidental citizens” just a couple of years ago, the IRS hit Boris Johnson with a big fat tax bill because he was born here while his father was on assignment in the US. I remember him being pretty PO’d as he claimed not to know, not to have availed himself of any citizenship rights ever. I believe he had to pay the tax bill, and then go to the US embassy to formally renounce his citizenship, which he probably had to pay something for too.

The IRS and Treasury uses all sorts of threats and bully tactics against foreign banks to get them to turn over names of US citizens with accounts and when said citizens are delinquent in tax filing or payment, to freeze accounts. Think you can get out of it by renouncing your citizenship? Think again! The IRS will access you a one time payment based on your last reported net worth you need to pay before they’ll accept your renunciation (an exit tax as it’s called).

Remember when one of those Google or FB billionaires decided to renounce his US citizenship and moved to Singapore (I think - Asia anyway)? Well, the guy was smart enough in that his money was already in Asia and the banks wouldn’t cooperate with the IRS. Schumer wanted sanctions on the bank, the country, and to increase the one-time payment to a flat 20% of net worth which the IRS were all for. Of course it went no where.

My question is if corporations are people, why do they pay no tax on foreign earnings unless they repatriate the funds, whereas actual people pay no matter what.

The IRS are truly awful.

[quote]I agree with him. It's the only issue I agree with him about.

For nearly three years, Trumpsters have been saying this exact thing about every issue, pretending to be liberal with "just one thing" they agree with Trump on. It's impossible that anyone falls for this crap anymore.

MAGA Bomber, Nazi Shooter, Stock Market Tumbling, Trump trying to kill covering pre-existing conditions

"No, No, look over here instead!" It is almost hilarious how transparent of a distraction this is.

R56 I agree I don't know how they still think people fall for this shit. They are painfully stupid

The sooner he does this the better.

Trump can't just rewrite the Constitution via Executive Order, can he?

Jesus this country is fucked.

In addition, R21, Freedom of Movement only applies in a limited manner - strictly to EU nationals. If citizens from outside the EU (e.g. Latin America, Africa, Asia) show up in the EU and give birth there - they and their newborns won't have any automatic right to Freedom of Movement across the EU - that right is only for privileged existing EU nationals.

And once again the Dems are silent.

Being in the minority doesn't take away their ability to at least react and give a response to some of this Trump nonsense.

Pelosi and Schumer are useless.

I have to add, like I always do in these threads, that people who deliberately try to incite racial hatred are human filth and don't deserve respect

Good send trumps ass back to Germany! We don’t want him!

For @realDonaldTrump’s information: “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” - The 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution

[quote]Trump can't just rewrite the Constitution via Executive Order, can he?

No, he cannot. The President alone can't alter any Constitutional amendments.

For those of you agreeing with Trump - how many generations back should we go? If anyone had a family that was here illegally should we kick out their descendants?

Probably because this is just distraction from the GOP-lead hate crimes and the midterm election, R62.

And why should the Dems say much of anything? When they do, outlets lie about what they said. Take the story yesterday about how HRC was "going to decide to run again after the midterms" -- it was a lie, based on her answer to what she could do to help Democrats if they took the White House in 2020. Several outlets full-on lied about what she said to rile up the Republican base. In other situations, Democrats are ignored by the media. Meanwhile, the GOP pulls stunts like Trump going to Pittsburgh when he's been asked not to, or Pence hiring a Jews For Jesus guy to speak on behalf of Jews after the massacre, and the media doesn't scrutinize it much at all.

It makes sense for the Dems to just ignore Trump pretending like he can change the Constitution via Executive Order. He can't, he's trying to distract, and the media will manipulate anything the Dems say anyway.

R60 No he can’t.

[quote]I have to add, like I always do in these threads, that people who deliberately try to incite racial hatred are human filth and don't deserve respect

Birthright citizenship applies to people from all over the world, many people who have so-called "Anchor Babies" are caucasians.

R60 No Trump can’t rewrite The Constitution but he’s very smart - What he’s a master at is changing the narrative - Floating ideas - Getting people talking - Rallying his base - Even if this doesn’t go anywhere people think it’s a possibility (Constitution be dammed) - The Democrats could learn a few things from this guy - The Mooch was talking about this very thing on Bill Maher Friday - Bill Maher said he lies 8 times a day - Mooch said it works - Maybe Democrats need to try a different strategy with Trump because what they’ve done the last 2 years hasn’t been working

Very interesting, informative post, R55.

Ireland voted against "anchor babies" in 2004 with 79 percent for ban

In June 2004, the Irish people voted to amend the Constitution to change the laws on citizenship and eliminate the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in Ireland. I would have completely forgotten about that vote if I hadn't been seeing so much comment on the so-called "anchor babies" in the American media. When the votes of that referendum were counted, 79% of the electorate approved the 27th amendment to the Irish Constitution (see article 9.1) and ended Ireland's "anchor baby" issue.

The campaign wasn't all that contentious (or it would have been more memorable). The two biggest parties were in favor of the change, but some of the smaller parties were opposed. There was some debate in the media and we had the usual election poster slogans to try to energize the voters.

In the early 2000s, there were many stories in the media about "non-national" women coming to Ireland to have their babies here in order that their babies have Irish (and, thus, EU) citizenship. We didn't have the phrase "anchor baby" – "maternity tourism" was tossed around a bit – but the basic premise was the same: women were coming to Ireland to have babies so that they could stay in Ireland or any other EU state.

If the change is made, then it should be that both parents have to be in the country legally.

That is why I had this OP on ignore, I had to search to find a thread on this.

Of course the racist fuck was itching to start a thread on this.

R75 The deplorable filth loves this stuff. They are the idiots trump is trying to energize with this. And look how adorable they are actually believing it will happen. Hey deplorables, hows the wall looking?

[quote] income from Russian birth tourism on his Miami properties ... luxury birth package specifically geared to wealthy-as-shit Russians to have their baby on US soil so it can have citizenship

I actually had a Jewish-Russian acquaintance who flew to Miami with her partner to give birth and get a 2nd citizenship for their kid. She was more than halfway into her pregnancy, not sure how they let her on the plane. Miami has a big Jewish-Russian community apparently - along with other popular big cities like NYC and LA. They weren't rich by any means though. AFAIK they're still there. I have no idea how they managed to stay - they possibly overstayed on their tourist visas.

I think everyone can agree that "birth tourism" needs to do. People in the country legally on visas? That's not right.

"Reverence for the Constitution" <--- another claimed ideal that Republicans have betrayed.

Republican Tom Nichols:

The President said something crazy so that we'd all argue over whether it's possible to do something crazy instead of noticing that his White House gives office space to racists who in a better world would be blogging their poison from mom's basement.

R55 No, Canada offers unconditional birth right citizenship. I know my cousin's kids are all citizens and she entered Canada illegally. (Her plan was actually to eventually come to america illegally but she settled in ans stayed put)

14th Amendment, Section 1. He doesn't have the authority. The King is a Tyrant.

America, Canada and Mexico all do the same birthright citizenship.

By comparison, Australia seems to have adopted an interesting middle-of-the-road approach. It abolished automatic citizenship for newborns as a general rule - only a kid born to a "legal permanent resident" gets citizenship. If the parents are on temporary work visas or there illegally - the kid doesn't get default citizenship.

[quote] What happens if a child is born in Australia to foreign parents? Don’t assume that the newborn will automatically gain Australian citizenship, it is very much dependent on the type of visa or status which the parents hold. Up until the 20th August 1986, all children that were born were classed as Australian citizens, but the rise in temporary migration prompted a change in law.

[quote] Current legislation states that if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident then the child will automatically acquire Australian citizenship. Once a baby is born, it’s just a case of the parents applying for an Australian passport once a birth certificate has been issued.

[quote] If the parents are both permanent residents, the child still gets citizenship. This means their baby will beat them in the race for citizenship and a much-coveted Australian passport. It’s when the parents are on temporary visas when the situation gets a little more complicated.

[quote] What if the parents are on visas? If both parents arrive on a visa then legally the child will hold the same type of visa ... When the parents move onto a permanent residency visa, so too does the baby.

The Democrats' response to Trump should be "OK. Go ahead and we'll let the courts sort it out. Now, back to healthcare."

We've been through this debate

End birthright citizenship unless both parents are American citizens.

Red meat for the deplorables.

So, dummy at r87, if a woman comes from Italy and lives in America and has a child with an American man and that child lives in the USA her whole life, she shouldn't be an American? And her children shouldn't be either, because she's not? Close your mouth, the flies are getting in.

We won't end this because as the OP posted, those are taxpayers.

Trump can't do this through an executive order.

Trump is full of shit. There was a huge story about him being involved in birth tourism at his properties. Special packages for rich Russians and Eastern Europeans to come stay here and give birth. Everything is back to Russians with him.

Yes- the most clueless amoral Presiden in history feeding xenophobic fear to his equally clueless deplorable base. They are all so stupid (or just bigotted?) that they do not realize the entire nation is made of immigrants and their descendants. Trump's family are recent immigrants and of course his 'courtesan' wife and her family are recent immigrants. You cannot make the idiocy of all this up!

Trumps properties will become ghost towns if all the Russian anchor babies are denied citizenship.

R90 Dump is such a moronic hypocrite!

Unconstitutional

It would actually be funny as hell. It might help to unwind his own family's claims to citizenship by derision. His grandfather was a scumbag who ran dubious businesses as a german immigrant in the Northwest, but failed to maintain his German citizenship by not serving in the military as required.

When they returned to Germany, they were informed they'd lost their German citizenship - and had to leave. They were deported from Bavaria in 1905. Bone spurs must be a genetic condition, as his grandfather also tried to claim he was physically unfit for duty when he was called up.

That's how Fascist Fred was born in New York City, who returned to New York while Elisabeth was pregnant. The same Fred who was arrested at a KKK rally in 1927. That's right kids - Donald Trump's father was an anchor baby and son of two deported German citizens.

Let's not ignore that Drumpf himself emigrated to the United States in in 1885, worked mostly in shady bordellos and bars in Seattle and somehow managed to quickly become a citizen, voting in the election of 1892. Since the original intent of Congress (first passed in 1790) stated that any free, white adult alien, male or female) who had resided for two years and desired to become a citizen was eligible - provided they were of good moral character, took an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, and their children under the age of 21 automatically became citizens.

The changes in 1855 provided for alien wives of American citizens and opening citizenship to persons of African descent. Technically, Trump should not have been extended citizenship because of his business dealing. But he got it. As he was running businesses of dubious moral character: flophouses, whorehouses and running booze during periods both were illegal, he could have had his application rejected. But everything was pretty much for sale.

Despite having made a fortune in Seattle, his wife hated it (or so their family legend claims), and they tried to return to Germany only to be rejected there and land back in New York. He died of the Spanish Flu.

I was born in US to US born parents. I prove my citizenship by presenting a birth certificate. How the hell am I supposed to prove citizenship now?

R95 Wow. Thank you for that post.

r96 You'll have to get a passport. Only choice.

Anything other than birthright citizenship is administrative nightmare replete with opportunities for abuse by biased governmental officials.

R98 — how do I get a passport when I can’t prove citizenship with a birth certificate?

Really R66? Because he’s literally doing it, right now.

He can't do what he wants to legally but he's right about ending birthright citizenship. Dumbest policy ever.

Trump can issue all the executive orders he wants.

He can issue an executive order declaring that every person in Hawaii is a sea turtle.

He can pen an executive order specifying that his penis is 14" long when fully erect.

Interesting R99 since most countries in the world seem to manage it. But those countries have the sense not allow hordes of illegals in their countries in the first place.

R7, the answer to your question is yes, a baby of 2 foreign parents who is born on American soil who leaves shortly after birth and never enters the US again will be liable for US taxes unless they give up their American citizenship.

I have friends in Europe who were born in the US but who grew up in Europe and who have to pay tax in the US on their earnings in Europe. They've returned for vacations to the US but it would still be the same if they'd never been back since they were born.

What they tell me is that under Obama the tax requirements became very stringent, because of the need to raise the government income in response to the financial crisis.

The tax issue is what made Tina Turner give up her US citizenship, because she was liable for so much tax in the US even though she'd lived abroad for decades. Record numbers of former US citizens who live abroad have been giving up their citizenship for the same reason. Of course, they have managed to secure the citizenship of their country of residence first.

The former British foreign secretary Boris Johnson was born in NYC when his parents were working there, but he grew up in Europe. He also gave up his US citizenship because of the tax bill from the US he received after the sale of a house in London.

[quote] I was born in US to US born parents. I prove my citizenship by presenting a birth certificate. How the hell am I supposed to prove citizenship now?

You're grandfathered in, R96. Exactly the same as Australian kids born before August 20, 1986 when the law changed. And Irish kids born before January 1, 2005. Your birth certificate shows your birth date. As long as anyone is born before the effective date of any change (if it even happens), you're absolutely fine. The same happened all over the world.

R100, I don't think this executive order will be retroactive (i.e. stripping people of US citizenship), it will just end the automatic right to US citizenship for babies born in the US to foreign parents.

He does outrageous things like this all the time to control the news cycle. And again and again, we let him.

It's how we won the presidency. Well, at least the nomination. We have to figure out a way to fight this media-savvy demagogue, or we are in some serious fucking trouble, homosexuals. (And everyone else.)

@TMZ

Ben & Jerry's Unveils Anti-Trump Ice Cream Called 'Pecan Resist'

[quote]Close your mouth, the flies are getting in.

Pics please.

They need to stop giving interviews to Trump voters and sycophants UNLESS they correct their bullshit and their false narratives and point out the lies and misinformation. Some of these people truly are too stupid to live.

r100 You use your birth certificate as one part of your application process. You'll need your original, notarized birth certificate (not a copy) and your social security card to apply.

You can apply in person at any Passport office or through the mail. If you live near a major city, you can find an office online. It's kind of a pain the first time, but it's worth it. Unless you plan on taking a cruise ship or driving across the border into Canada or Mexico, don't bother getting the passport card.

Good Luck. I don’t see it happening but he’ll cause as much chaos as he’s allowed to.

R96 - if you're white and not a Muslim you'll probably won't need anything but a birth certificate.

R88 What part of the word "birthright" escapes you? It means US citizenship automatically bestowed on anyone born on US soil.

No, it should only be automatically given to those born on US soil to 2 American citizens. To others, like the scenario you described, there will be a process for them to get citizenship, but it will not be automatic at birth.

Most advanced Western countries do it this way.

I think the flies are between your legs. Go check.

Trump can't do this. And if the supreme Court goes along with him, well, that leave many other far less clear amendments up for debate. Like the second.

Go ahead, asshole

R95 Proves, the entire Trump family is trash. Going back generations.

Still can't believe Trump is in the white house. Unfucking believable.

[quote][R100], I don't think this executive order will be retroactive (i.e. stripping people of US citizenship), it will just end the automatic right to US citizenship for babies born in the US to foreign parents.

It will be retroactive if it's upheld by a Supreme Court decision. The 14th amendment says unequivocally that anyone born in the US has US citizenship (unless not subject to US jurisdiction, e.g. the offspring of diplomats). If the SC agrees with Trump, as R116 said, a lot of the constitution can be reinterpreted in tortuous ways.

Google Maternity Tourism in the US.

[quote]He can pen an executive order specifying that his penis is 14" long when fully erect.

IVANKA!! BRING ME MY PEN!!!!

This will never happen.

Focus on reality like what happened to the murdered journalist

Who paid for the YouTube videos that radicalized the Bomber and shooter? Hmmm, who has billions and hates liberals?

R118, Ireland went through a similar debate: they changed their Constitution (to abolish citizenship birthright) and it was not retroactive - it became effective prospectively (going forwards) as of 1st January 2005.

However, granted they did it not via court re-interpretation but apparently via a direct amendment:

[quote] In March 2004, the government introduced the draft Bill for the 27th Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland to remedy what the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, described as an "abuse of citizenship" ... The effect of the amendment was to prospectively restrict the constitutional right to citizenship by birth to those who are born on the island of Ireland to at least one parent who is (or is someone entitled to be) an Irish citizen. Those born on the island of Ireland before the coming into force of the amendment continue to have a constitutional right to citizenship.

I am for and against this. If a couple is here on an extended work visa for 5 years or more or they have permanent resident status but aren't yet citizens and they've been paying US taxes all that time and they have a baby on US soil, that baby should have US citizenship. But these people who just show up specifically to pop out a baby on US soil (I'm talking to all the Chinese who engage in birth vacations to the US) and others who are just here visiting and happen to have the baby, nope they should not get automatic citizenship.

And yet.....

America always uses the threat or gift of citizenship for political purposes.

Refugee Cubans get automatic, jump to the front of the line, green cards. The rich get citizenship if they invest $100K in the US. Trump wants to end citizenship for those who are not already citizens because he knows most will be minorities.

There's an argument for having some form of diplomatic reciprocity in the future.

It seems manifestly unfair that if an American couple goes to work and live longterm in e.g. Germany - their newborn won't get any local citizenship rights and remains a " foreign alien". But, vice versa, if a German couple goes to work and live in the US - their newborn magically gets US citizenship rights. It's a very unequal situation. Europeans (who don't even need asylum) get US citizenship for their kids, but never vote for any equal, reciprocal treatment of US workers's kids in Europe.

Countries like e.g. Brazil or Fiji actually have a better claim to getting US citizenship for their newborns. Because they, at least, reciprocally grant their domestic citizenship to kids of foreign (including US) parents who work and live there.

R105, Americans who live elsewhere do owe taxes in America but they first get a credit for taxes paid overseas

So people born in the US will no longer be citizens. Wow.

[quote]But those countries have the sense not allow hordes of illegals in their countries in the first place.

You (and others on this thread) might be interested to know that:

1) Obama cracked down significantly on illegal immigration and returned illegal immigrants to their country of origin at much higher rates than the Bush Administration. (Whenever a Republican says Democrats are for "open borders," he's lying.)

2) The current pace of illegal immigration has dropped well below past levels (and that trend had begun before Trump took office).

3) Unemployment in this country is extremely low and many unskilled jobs are going begging.

R33 is exactly right. This is about brown people, period.

America has a birthrate of zero. Trump thinks he can somehow miraculously grow the economy dramatically without having more immigrants and citizens born here.

He's only fooling hos deplorables.

What happened to the murdered Saudi?

Who funded the radicalization of the right wing terrorists?

Well?

[quote] But those countries have the sense not allow hordes of illegals in their countries in the first place.

Illegals in the US make up about 3% of the population. That's hardly a horde. But it's fun to demonize, right?

Trump's supporters hate brown people and these are just dig whistles to get them excited.

Trump should just say, "Our new policy is to allow anyone to shoot brown people on sight." The Deplorables would be dancing in the streets.

This is what he wants us to be talking about, so let’s not.

[quote]So people born in the US will no longer be citizens. Wow.

Not without a Constitutional Amendment. An executive order cannot overturn the 14th Amendment.

[quote] But these people who just show up specifically to pop out a baby on US soil (I'm talking to all the Chinese who engage in birth vacations to the US) and others who are just here visiting and happen to have the baby, nope they should not get automatic citizenship.

That number is so tiny that it's irrelevant.

[quote]He can't do what he wants to legally but he's right about ending birthright citizenship. Dumbest policy ever.

So over 200 years of this policy without any ill effects and it's the "dumbest policy ever?"

Right.

R137 = Luddite

[quote] So people born in the US will no longer be citizens. Wow.

People with at least one American parent will get citizenship regardless.

Relax Queens, Trump can’t end birthright citizenship on his own.

[quote]R137 = Luddite

Still waiting for some evidence that this is the "dumbest policy ever."

*crickets*

This is another diversion. Republicans up for election were feeling the heat about people losing pre-existing conditions. Trump needed to change the conversation. The caravan wasn't enough. So he gives an interview about taking citizenship away from brown babies. And the media has fallen for it again! It's all they are talking about!

R141 Still waiting for a glimmer of common sense.

r136 the fascists have never considered any minority too small a population for extermination.

Still waiting for some evidence that this is the dumbest policy ever, R143. Anything? Anything? Bueller?

Still waiting for that glimmer R145. Anything? Anything? Uhhhhh . . .

Dumbest attempt at policy change ever. Trumpers might see this as a good thing. Little do they realize that if trump sets precedent by changing this Constitutional rule with an executive order, then any future Democratic president (if we're so lucky) can issue an EO to do away with the 2nd amendment.

Still waiting for some evidence that this is the dumbest policy ever, R146. Anything? Anything?

Distraction post.

THREAD CLOSED.

Trump is just trying to take back the spotlight from the shootings and the assassination attempts. This is similar to that "We're going to pass a 10% tax cut on the middle class next week" bullshit. It's an effort to get the base all riled up again.

r107 no, it won't. No executive order violating the Constitution is valid. If anything, it's red meat for thousands of groups to initiate federal action against the Attorney General first in federal courts who will shut it down. Then the groups go after Sessions to force him to defend this in court. He can't, but if he tries he'll be forced out by Congress - likely the first sitting AG impeached by the Senate in 200 years.

It's a game by Trump to get rid of Sessions, and all Sessions has to be really do is decline to defend it in court to make a fool of Trump. it then falls to Trumps's Solicitor General who will get his head handed to him. It's more likely the majority will refuse to hear the Administration's appeal which ends his attempt to circumvent the Constitution.

This will have to go through the lower courts and federal courts before it hits the Supreme. It gets stayed by the lower court is it progresses.

I love how the party that is supposed to have this great reverence for the Constitution decides that it's okay to shit all over it and ignore it.

Lindsey Graham is totally on board.

Yawn. More October surprises. All the media is talking about now is this crap and Hillary running again - she is her own worst enemy for saying that.

[quote]Then the groups go after Sessions to force him to defend this in court. He can't, but if he tries he'll be forced out by Congress - likely the first sitting AG impeached by the Senate in 200 years.

I don't think this happens. Congress won't act to impeach Sessions over something like this. Not to mention that most of the signs indicate that Trump will replace Sessions after the mid-terms anyway.

She didn't say that, R154.

This would need a complete change in the Constitution--a repealing of an Amendment, which is very difficult.

Of course, many conservative states are already calling for a constitutional convention to make the Constitution more conservative, including including Jesus in it.

R156 all she needs to do to shut it down is tweet “Let me be clear, I am NEVER running for President EVER again.”

That doesn't change the fact that she didn't say she was running for President. She has said that she is not and no matter how many times she says it, it won't be enough.

That was my parent's status when I was born, r84. They were permanent residents here in the states after immigrating here from Mexico during the early 80s.

Trump eyeing executive order to end birthright citizenship, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution

Really R135? He and his lawyers and the White House think different, and who’s going to stop them? They’ve gotten everything they’ve wanted so far, and have you looked at SCOTUS lately?

I fully expect an executive order turning around Roe and Obergefell if they win the midterms, and there will be challenges which the Supremes will stop.

There can only be a constitutional convention if 34 states call for it. Had Hillary been elected, the Republicans may have used that threshold. But they're going to lose many governorships this fall, so that dream is dead.

Yes, really, R162. And yes, I've looked at the SCOTUS. I don't see five votes there for such a radical reinterpretation of Constitutional law that was decisively settled over a century ago. And if you look at the "originalist" view of the Constitution, it gets even harder for the Court's conservatives to go along with this. It's not true that they've "gotten everything they've wanted." The courts have stopped the worst of the excesses.

[quote]I don't see five votes there for such a radical reinterpretation of Constitutional law that was decisively settled over a century ago.

Seriously? I disagree.

We are going to see Trump pulling a lot of shit like this over the next two years, now that they have stocked the court with radical rightwingers.

R165, I agree with you in general, just not in the specifics of this case.

Trump never misses an opportunity to be an asshole.

More red-meat distraction for the base. And of course the press has to play along, because there must be some "both sides" hay to make of this. Sure Trump doesn't understand the basics of how the Constitution works, but Democrats really need to learn to compromise and let him do a little bit of dictator-ing, right?

Well, the "both sides" thing seems to not be working as well this time. Even Paul Ryan isn't on board.

This is yet another threat made solely to gin up the deplorables. This will lead nowhere ultimately

EVERYTHING Trump says is a lie. ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING!

Now that Paul Ryan has only two months left, he has found his balls.

Ryan is such an asshole. He'll make a lot of noise for bullshit value, then go along. Like he always does. Because in his own way he's a truly terrible human being, just like Trump.

Well, in this case, R173, there is nothing for Ryan to do. This is all on Trump. And if Congress really were going to consider legislation on this, it likely would not be until after Ryan is gone (assuming that Republicans hold the House, which seems highly unlikely). Probably the reason that Ryan is speaking up.

“Well you obviously cannot do that,” the House speaker said in a radio interview with WVLK in Kentucky. “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”

Thanks GOP/Conservatives.....you stupid azzes have created a monster.Wonder what he will try to fix next....13th amendment or perhaps the 22nd (Potus for life for his stupid shills) He must go.....period,end of story.If you like his idiotic rants....you can take him and both of you can go.An if your thinking this is a good idea...please understand this won't be for just minorities dummies......Trumptard ,will target all second generation non americans. Go explain that to your Parents......as they curse you for being so stupid that you voted for a man out to destroy YOU

[quote]Because in every way, he's a truly terrible human being, just like Trump.

FIXED.

[quote]Now that Paul Ryan has only two months left, he has found his balls.

I highly doubt that.

I sniffed the Cowardly Ryan many, many times and came up with nothing.

Some are saying this might apply to gays, because we weren't here on Jesus' promise land, physiology, when conceived. Its causing quite the sir on Out.com.

the birthright amendment exists because there was no other way to make ex slaves citizens. I think it's use is outdated but it would take a constitutional amendment. also i have to admit i don't know about the issues involved.

trump s just a lying piece of s*** and throws this crap out to get the deplorables excited.

If you want to be come a citizen. Be a whore and marry rich.

Not entirely, R180. The status quo at the time was that white people had birthright citizenship. The debate was whether to extend that to non-white people. So the 14th Amendment just codified what already existed and made it clear that it was for everyone.

There needs to be a new Amendment about the Presidential hopefuls meeting certain IQ levels and psychiatric evaluations and a thorough test on Civics.

Not to mention a public audit of their business practices and tax returns.

r183, You really think Trump has a low iq? I don't think he's intellectual at all, but he's no dummy.

No one cares about Kashoggi anymore. That story is two news cycles old now.

I don't think he's "dumb," I think he has ADD and is intellectually-lazy. He's an incurious, old fool who obsesses over the shallow things in life because that's who he is. And I don't think he would do well on an IQ test because he doesn't have the attention span for it.

He got into Wharton from Hofstra due to his brother knowing someone over there, not becaese he could actually get in on his own.

r187, point taken.

Why is the media entertaining this bullshit? They know good and well this buffoon can’t change the Constitution with an executive order. They fall for it hook, line and sinker everytime.

Folks, Trump suggesting this is, in fact, an impeachable offense.

Add it to the list, R190.

R186, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh's hearing were a mere 34 days ago. Let that sink in. We went from that to Kashoggi, to the caravan, to Megyn Kelly, and now to this exactly a week before midterms.

This right is in the Constitution. He CAN'T DO IT. Case closed.

Don’t forget the MAGAbomber and Synagogue shooting. Both old news now.

This ADHD bullshit is how Trump got into the White House and why he thrives at changing the media narrative.

That's just one of the reasons that the national media simply cannot handle Trump, R192. No scandal or problem ever has the chance to fully build before the next one comes along. He's broken the system and they don't know how to react.

I included the massacre in my party but it got cut somehow.

R195, because he's repulsive in every conceivable way that you can't keep up with someone who is an absolute parasite. The day he drops dead will be the first time he ever did something unselfish in his life.

People like him live to ripe, old ages. Look at him, a geriatric fat fuck who eats junk food everyday and yet he’s more energetic than ever. He’ll probably reach 100. Just like that piece of shit Robert Mugabe.

Rick Scott walks away when asked if he supports Trump ending birthright citizenship. His campaign also declined to comment.

r195, you're right 100%. Vote 3rd party change. Lets make a true game changer occupy the white house.

Please whether it voter fraud, birthright citizenship or the "caravan" Republicans come up with solutions to problems that don't exist.

Trump makes this stuff up. Hoping to get two news cycles out it. One, when he makes the statement. Two, when it is reported it can't be done or is a lie. For example his 10% tax cut for the middle class. His base believes Trump even when the story is that he was lying.

[quote] End birthright citizenship unless both parents are American citizens.

Would people still have a problem with this if it extended to legal residents and only required one parent?

It's a solution in search of a problem, R202. Show me the data that clearly identify the problems caused by the 14th Amendment and I'll then be able to consider various solutions. Until then, this is just the usual racist bullshit that doesn't warrant anything but contempt.

To be an American is a Privilege, not a Right.

Ireland was 79% for it. I wonder what percentage of Americans would be for it, if it were up to a vote.

"Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the U.S. Constitution. "

Well, he's an affront to the human race, so...

Ryan: Trump can't end birthright citizenship

[quote]To be an American is a Privilege, not a Right.

The Trumpoid capital letters, I suspect, are an attempt to turn English into German. Wonder what R204 did to earn the privilege of citizenship besides being born under certain geographical coordinates. Also, is Trump going to really do away with the little golden goose that is Russian birth tourism?

Trump trolling the media again. Love it.

You would know about trolling, R209:

[quote]The black vote is now up for grabs, with Kanye, Diamond & Silk and other stars giving it up to Trump. We could be seeing a Black Wave in November.

[quote]We win the Senate back then we pack the court. Pack it with non-binaries, Namibians, Nan Michiganwomyn. Anyone who represents OUR truth!

.......

Sims' middle name is Kendall??? Eewww.

Agree with him though, Trump wants to pump up his base to intimidate and dishearten the rest.

In LA, illegal immigration has been devastating for the Black Community

R164. You’re dangerously delusional about what’s happening in this country.

R190 Impeachment is OFF THE TABLE!

It is 100% a right if you were born here, you dumb twat.

*sigh* R214, then feel free to educate me, since all you've done so far is toss around ridiculous accusations and insults.

Is Trump first generation Germane?

German

R204, the Constitution says otherwise. But you do you.

He did it to set up the court case. The SC will have to decide if the 14th Amendment should apply to people born within the U.S. who not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

[quote] people born within the U.S. who not subject to the jurisdiction thereof

First of all, you forgot a word. Secondly everyone in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

R221, it doesn't apply to those, by the plain text of the 14th Amendment. That's been settled. But that list of people who are "born within the U.S. who not [sic] subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is basically just foreign dignitaries. Even those here illegally are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

We’ll see what the SC says.

Or, you could, you know, actually read the 14th Amendment, R224.

No, we won't. After the election we will never hear about this stupid idea again.

Well, Miss Lindsey is insisting that she's going to sponsor legislation on this. It's an idea that just will not die. But, yeah, I don't really expect Trump to follow through on this, anymore than he will that stupid middle class tax cut promise.

The Supreme Court also doesn't want to open a huge can of worms: if those here on visas and here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that means that they can do whatever they want and the local law enforcement officers cannot touch them.

Such a blatant sop to his base. The utter vileness.

He may be wrong alibutvon this he is right.

I fucking hate this, but if it susses out that the USSC upholds this, I want it retroactive to the illegal great grandparents so I can be deported back to Ireland. Fuck this shit.

Make it retroactive and ship nasty Nikki Haley back to Calcutta

The 124th Amendment was designed to grant citizenship to the freed slaves, not encourage foreigners to pop out anchor babies for government benefits.

Ship all of us back! Where does the Drumpf family end up? Bavaria?

[quote] The 124th Amendment was designed to grant citizenship to the freed slaves, not encourage foreigners to pop out anchor babies for government benefits.

Was that enacted in 2854?

As Scalia said, intent doesn't matter; the words do.

And in this case, R235, both the intent and the words are in line, as anyone who actually looked into this will testify. The debate made it clear precisely what they were doing and the language of the amendment matches that intent.

Where does it say anything about slaves?

As noted in R182:

The status quo at the time was that white people had birthright citizenship. The debate was whether to extend that to non-white people. So the 14th Amendment just codified what already existed and made it clear that it was for everyone.

In the words of the Amendment....where does it say anything about limiting this to former slaves?

It doesn't, of course, R239. That's just the usual dishonesty of those who don't like the amendment.

You mean those slaves who were granted some strange fraction of a vote as a 'chattel' of their owner, but with all the rights of a citizen after being 'freed' yet were born here to parents born here, over many generations....those slaves, R233? Or the ones being postcarded off of the voting rolls? Those people? How about the folks they just picked up on minor offenses through the 50's and 60's, like a parking ticket, and sent to jail to fulfill a work quota at the cotton factory? those slaves? It could be argued, R233, that many of the children of these people requiring amendments to proclaim citizenship never got to fully enjoy it.....ever.

The idea of 'citizenship' has always been amorphous and convenient to those in power. You can buy your citizenship with service (only now you have to be the right color or religion) or you can buy in for the right price....I think it's half a million now....and with unlimited chain immigration the more you pay in.

Why do "legal experts" or anyone else bother talking about the legality of it? It only matters what five justices say it means. Amateur legal opinions are always based on what people want the outcome to be.

Because, R242, when the President wants to do something so clearly unconstitutional, the news media take an interest and they bring in the experts to demonstrate just why it's unconstitutional. What would you prefer they do?

This is all to keep the political shit stirring and the social divisions between citizens wide and inflamed.

Rather than focus on the MANY laws which have already been broken, trampled on and mocked, we're sucked into these dime show tapdances that equate to listening to a senile drunkard fart pointedly between snores.

I'm glad I use forums like DL to filter through the calculated bullshit for me. I simply can no longer subject myself to the media and the slime it produces and popularizes.

You use DL to filter your news, R244? You must be a genius.

I have to admit I like the "this is what other countries do" argument. Here is a list of what other countries do that we should implement:

End capital punishment.

Implement universal healthcare.

Severely restrict gun ownership by private individuals. By severely I mean all but end.

And don't forget paid vacations and taxing the wealthy, R246.

For those of you with a reflex judgement of support for eliminating Birthright Citizenship, I suggest some digging into your genealogical history.

One of the great impacts of Birthright Citizenship was to hasten integration into American societies (both North AND SOUTH). Within a single generation, the immigrants became ‘real Americans’. It is no accident that the majority of Birthright countries are in the Western Hemisphere with a long history of immigration.

Take a look at your past. There is a very good chance that many of your ancestors were never officially naturalized. Additionally, the right to Citizenship for women is particularly complicated. Many natural born women lost their right to citizenship if they married an alien. (Especially for marriages between 1908 and 1922.) There is still a generation of Americans in their 80s and 90s who are only citizens by Birthright despite their maternal lineage extending deep into US history.

There are several overseas firms which sell Birth Tourism, which arranges for pregnant foreign women to come to the U.S. and have Anchor Babies so they can be eligible for citizenship and government benefits. It's a major business in China.

Uh-huh, and the U.S. cracks down when they find such accommodations in the U.S., usually in the Los Angeles area. Considering that there are nearly 4 million people born in the U.S. every year, and the most generous guess is that fewer than 1% of them are from non-U.S. citizens, I'm not seeing why I should be terribly concerned.

You know what else is rampant R39. Having lots of children, the Catholic way.

[quote] Considering that there are nearly 4 million people born in the U.S. every year, and the most generous guess is that fewer than 1% of them are from non-U.S. citizens, I'm not seeing why I should be terribly concerned.

Illegal immigration disproportionally affects communities that are already overburdened. What's worse is that a lot of low skilled work is being replaced by automation. This means more competition for fewer resources. Lastly, instead of the melting pot, wer'e seeing communities becoming more and more segregated. Being bilingual is no longer a skill that's nice to have but a requirement for any public service position. It doesn't matter if I'm multilingual if not being able to speak Spanish is a disqualifer.

Um, R252, "anchor babies" are, by definition, not "illegal immigration." Do try to keep up.

[quote]Um, R252, "anchor babies" are, by definition, not "illegal immigration." Do try to keep up.

But "anchor babies" are relevant to the discussion of birthright citizenship.

Just look around R217, you fucking moron. You’re part of the problem. No better than a Trumpkin. Blocked.

Whether you're for or against birthright citizenship is irrelevant. Constitutional amendments should not and cannot be overturned by executive order, no matter how much one might disagree with the amendment.

Yes, they are, R254, but that has nothing to do with anything that R252 wrote.

LOL... Oh, I do love R255. Responding to a post where he was (quite correctly) accused of tossing around ridiculous accusations and insults, he responds with ... ridiculous accusations and insults. And then flounces out after announcing to everyone that he was blocking me.

I do so love a drama queen.

In the past 50 years, only three amendments to the Constitution have been ratified.

Watch the attempt to shift the Overton Window in real time right on this thread.

Not today, motherfuckers.

R204. The Constitution clearly disagrees with you.

It’s annoying enough when presidents think they can make law with the stroke of a pen, but now Mr. Toadstool Todger thinks he gets to overrule the constitution?

[quote]"anchor babies" are, by definition, not "illegal immigration."

They will be if this goes through.

R263, you're assuming that they will remain in the U.S. Assuming that "this goes through," which it won't, their parents can simply take them away, as is mostly done today with the so-called "anchor babies."

Oh my Ronnie

I would guess the percentage of babies born to people here illegally is much higher than 1%

I hope this comes to fruition especially after the Flushing Queens chinese baby birthing debacle this summer.

Who wants the baby of a parasitic sneak in their land?

Switch out US for middle class family with two kids. Parents are older but mom always wanted a little girl. Get one in china, south america, russia. 3rd kid is gonna cut into attention and funds of the original two sons of this average middle class family.

Should mom just appreciate what she has or say fuck it while shopping for baby clothes and car seats? Well?

That's where you stand on this matter.

[quote]There is a very good chance that many of your ancestors were never officially naturalized.

Heck, in the 1970s, I could barely speak to my great grandparents because they only spoke German and never learned English.

I want Trump and the fucked-up SCOTUS to decide I'm not a real citizen. Send me back to Germany on your dime, assholes.

I grew up in Arcadia, CA, just east of Pasadena, which is now known as the Chinese Beverley Hills and is just full on up to its gills in Chinese birth tourism. Wealthy businessmen paying cash for multi-million dollar homes.

These are not the babies being born in our country (American babies) that this fool of a man is talking about here.

Again, Trump himself does a lively business from Russian birth tourism.

I get that he has to feed his base red meat, but could he apply this in a more logical way? Cuba for instance? Anyone who wanted to leave, should have left by now; take away there one toe status. Compromise idiot.

If you get that he has to feed the base, R272, why do you keep trying to apply logic to his thinking process? We all know, by now, that his intellect is incapable of reasoning.

In fact, if he weren't getting his ego boosted, he wouldn't do it. He's that fucking selfish.

The reason the U.S. has a high enough birth rate to support Social Security and what pensions there are left is immigrants. They are usually young and pay into SS before they are even citizens. They’re also propping up union dues.

If you look at the replacement rate in first world countries in Europe and North America, people aren’t having enough kids. If we didn’t accept immigrants our population would go down, not up. I found out about this when my dad’s union pension was reduced much to his dismay. Young immigrants started paying union dues and they saved his pension.

If you look at the replacement rate in Europe, none of those countries have an average 2 or more kids. I guess in some countries that’s partly because workplaces are so hostile to pregnant and working mothers in some places, but in Europe they give a lot of family leave so that can’t be it.

That’s why Merkel let in those Muslim immigrants virtually unvetted. Germany has a very low native birth rate and it was causing issues with being able to support social services for the elderly that weren’t being replaced. Japan is the same. They won’t let in most immigrants, but their birth rate is plummeting. They’d rather die off than take foreigners that don’t share their culture and values.

We’re lucky to have Mexico and Canada next door, they have societies that are mostly compatible to ours. A lot of Mexicans speak good English now. They are mostly Catholic and have the Christian ethic that America’s Social Services programs are built on.

I don’t mean you have to be religious, I mean you have to take on board the idea that the poor and elderly need to be looked after. The Founding Fathers were all raised at a time when Christian charity was a thing, our founding documents are written with the assumption that we’re going to help the poor, and that people have human rights. Over the years that has been fleshed out with specific laws and policies.

In some historically non-Christian based countries, they just don’t give a damn about the poor, their religions in some cases even say if you’re poor you have it coming. It’s a striking difference in upbringing. Some eastern people just assume the poor are always going to suffer and who cares. Try getting them to pay taxes for welfare or free school.

President Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship has tossed a grenade into the final stretch of the midterm elections, roiling centrist Republicans and further endangering a House majority already at risk of slipping away.

Keep fucking that chicken, r275.

This will help Republicans.

[quote]The Founding Fathers were all raised at a time when Christian charity was a thing,

The Founding Fathers were not particularly religious.

An argument could be made that with automation coming to replace so many jobs, a lower birth rate would actually be beneficial.

[quote]I would guess the percentage of babies born to people here illegally is much higher than 1%

And your guess would be wrong. Next?

[quote]Who wants the baby of a parasitic sneak in their land?

The odds are quite good that someone in your ancestry line enjoyed the privilege of birthright citizenship. Are you prepared to give up your citizenship?

R248 , along with so many of you, are talking about the past. It's not 1890, nor is it 1990. Automation is going to hit the whole world like a ton of bricks, causing war, starvation and civil unrest everywhere. Add in climate change and...

Trump has no right to do it his, however it is a very divisive issue, and the Democrats need to lose it, because at the end of the day most people's primary concern is themselves and their families. Most Americans are too uncertain about their own prospects to care about the people of other countries, whose ancestors did not build this one with their blood and treasure, yet who want to enjoy the benefits.

And for the two-year-olds who scream "racist" at everyone who even looks at this issue critically, you're part of the problem. Throughout the course of history, foreigners in numbers have been greeted with resistance, yet you insult struggling people who see that the schools don't have proper funding even without the burden of ESL.

I'm volunteering for Democrats in close elections, WTF are you doing?

[quote]Trump has no right to do it his, however it is a very divisive issue, and the Democrats need to lose it

Oh, garbage. This isn't even on the top 20 of issues that matter to people. It's in the news now because of Trump. Trump will move on to a shiny new toy and this will disappear again. It's not even worth the Democratic Party's time to engage on this.

R283 I don't think anyone can comment critically on this issue without getting blocked. As much as I prefer to debate on substance, I won't bother with this.

Ever wonder why Chinese women don't show up in those progressive Scandinavian countries to drop their crotch fruit? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

R281 Nobody knows how many there are. That's why they are referred to as undocumented.

There are various ways to get estimates to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy, R287. 1% is at the high end of those various estimates, which is why we can pretty confidently say that no, it's not above that.

Immigration was a good thing in the industrial and post war era where there was a definite labor shortage. However, today a lot of low skilled labor is being replaced by automation and the digital economy is creating greater wealth disparity.

And yet all of you racists still can't explain why it is that despite the influx of these people coming here for "free stuff," the top states on the dole aka getting "free stuff," are states that are solidly red and these people aren't ever heading towards those states.

The Maryland crab industry was severely hurt this summer as their usual crab pickers could not get into the country. And none of the locals wanted the job. No crab for you!

How about "free immigration was the intent of the founders". That seems to be the non stop bleating of the Republi-sheep. Except when you know, it non-whites, non-christians or non-heteros. Then it's "Jane! Stop this crazy thing!". Apparently, the Constitution is reserved for Dude Bros who want to buy Russian Pussy.

If he can do it by executive order, a Dem president can just undo it by executive order.

R291 They would do it if they were being paid a living wage.

If someone wants to demonstrate just why the 14th Amendment has been so terrible for the United States, great. Let's have that discussion and let's back it up with some real facts. But please don't pretend that the President can override the Constitution with an Executive Order. And please focus that argument specifically on those people who are born here. And, while you're at it, take a look at the unintended consequences of such a Constitutional change.

But don't start with an argument like, "However, today a lot of low skilled labor is being replaced by automation and the digital economy is creating greater wealth disparity." Because that's meaningless drivel and it's largely irrelevant when we're talking about children who are legal U.S. citizens.

[quote][R291] They would do it if they were being paid a living wage.

BULLSHIT. The produce industry offered jobs with a living wage to citizens and they still wouldn't do it. It's actual hard work. Coal miners aren't even willing to take a free offer of education and retraining for jobs that actually prepare them for the 21st C. Face it, a lot of American aren't willing to work certain jobs.

R295 As far as I understand, this wouldn't apply retroactively. All current U.S. citizens would be protected. I wouldn't be in favor of this as it currently stands, but the language can definitely be made less vague.

Basically, you're both right, R296. There is a price point at which Americans will discover that they're fine with performing that labor. The trick is to find that price point. Clearly, it's above what those immigrant crab pickers were willing to accept. It might even have been high enough to where it no longer made sense to even have the industry anymore.

Trump is just throwing out whatever his hateful base wants to hear to get them out for the midterms.

I agree that it wouldn't apply retroactively, R297, but what I meant was let's go look at the impact of the 14th Amendment. What is the problem we're trying to solve by overriding that portion of it? How has it negatively impacted the U.S.? Why is it worth the trouble to further amend the Constitution to remove or modify those words?

Or is it, as R299 notes, that it's just Trump trying to gin up his base and there really aren't any significant issues here?

[quote] As far as I understand, this wouldn't apply retroactively. All current U.S. citizens would be protected.

How do you know? If the constitution is changed, that any president could start looking backwards and getting rid of those who were born of non-citizen parents.

Trump is looking back to old criminal records and deporting citizens now. It could happen with a constitutional change about birthright too.

the 14th Amendment has never caused any problem. In a country that has a zero birth rate, we need more kids. Citizens pay taxes to keep this country running.

the Second Amendment has been horrible for the country and 40 thousand dead each year from gun violence is just one of the reasons.

Why is the 14th Amendment so bad? Can anyone explain?

{quote] If someone wants to demonstrate just why the 14th Amendment has been so terrible for the United States

It increases the number of brown people

[quote]”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” - The 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution

..,AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

That is the qualifier that everyone ignores. A tourist or illegal alien cannot be forced to pay income taxes, or drafted into the army, or serve jury duty, or vote. Therefore they are not subject to US jurisdiction. Therefore their children aren’t automatically citizens.

That’s the argument being made and it’s a good one to have.

[quote]Or is it, as [R299] notes, that it's just Trump trying to gin up his base and there really aren't any significant issues here?

Of course that's what's going on. But again—even if you think the 14th Amendment is bad for the country, and you can support that argument with facts and legitimate reasons, overturning it by executive order is unconstitutional and would set a terrible, scary precedent if allowed to happen. There is a legitimate, constitutional process in place for repealing an Amendment and if you really think the 14th (or any Amendment) should be repealed, that's what to work for.

[quote] ..,AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof... That is the qualifier that everyone ignores.

We're not ignoring it. They are, in fact, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States when they are in our country, with only a couple of very specialized exceptions. If they commit a crime, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the U.S. will prosecute. That's what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. It does not refer to income taxes or jury duty.

Your argument is a terrible one, as it ignores a couple of centuries of jurisprudence, not to mention the entire history of the U.S. Birthright citizenship didn't originate with the 14th Amendment; it was the status quo when the U.S. become a nation. All that the 14th Amendment did was ensure that everyone understood that this status quo applied to everyone, not just to white people.

The single biggest negative I hear about birthright citizenship is that it bestows citizenship to the parents and their extended families. Why not just end chain migration then?

I don’t think the 14th has been challenged in a meaningful way. Birth tourism is a definite manipulation of the spirit of the amendment. It needs to be looked at.

Yes R307, and btw, R305, not even Michael Anton is making that argument.

How can the exectuive order Trump is proposing not be retroactive? It's not just "from now on there's no birthright citizenship"; implicitly or explicitly the order would reinterpret the 14th amendment and so apply to everyone it covers. (Fortunately an executive order can't supersede Supreme Court decisions.)

Birth tourism already has been investigated and continues to be investigated. There have been a couple of major raids in the Los Angeles area, in particular, over the past few years. All of this is ongoing, just as is the case with other immigration issues.

[quote]The single biggest negative I hear about birthright citizenship is that it bestows citizenship to the parents and their extended families.

It really doesn't. That claim isn't borne out by the facts.

[quote]This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.

[quote]The only thing that a so-called anchor baby can do to assist either of their undocumented parents involves such a long game that it's not a practical immigration strategy, said Greg Chen, an immigration law expert and director of The American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group that also advocates for immigrant-friendly reforms. That long game is this: If and when a U.S. citizen reaches the age of 21, he or she can then apply for a parent to obtain a visa and green card and eventually enter the United States legally.

The linked article goes into more detail as to why it's just not a very practical strategy, as there would be penalties, long wait times, and hoops to jump through.

What’s the status of those investigations r311? Genuinely interested in the topic.

Trump can’t unilaterally change an amendment but it is a good discussion since birthright citizenship is an aberration in the developed world. If it’s such a positive, why don’t European countries have the same?

R305, wrong--”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."

The babies are born in the US and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction. Are you saying children of tourists don't have to follow Americans laws? Are you saying the tourists themselves don't' have to follow American laws?

[quote] birthright citizenship is an aberration in the developed world

At least 30 countries bestow it, including Canada and Mexico

I was mostly referring to various publicized raids, R313, like the big one from a few years ago in Los Angeles. There was another such more recently in Miami (see link).

[quote]But Miami Mami has drawn scrutiny from law enforcement. In June, it was raided by the FBI, and an employee was convicted of making false statements on passport applications. The owners say they knew nothing about it, fired the worker and their business license was renewed.

[quote]Federal prosecutors declined to comment on the case, and the FBI said it could not discuss "an active investigation."

Info on the 2015 Chinese "birth tourism" rings in California.

[quote]Are you saying the tourists themselves don't' have to follow American laws?

They have to follow ‘pedestrian’ laws: don’t speed, don’t steal, don’t jaywalk...

But again, they can’t be drafted or forced to pay taxes. The responsibility for citizenship isn’t theirs.

That's not what "jurisdiction" means, R318. It has nothing to do with citizenship.

[quote] Birth tourism already has been investigated and continues to be investigated. There have been a couple of major raids in the Los Angeles area, in particular, over the past few years. All of this is ongoing, just as is the case with other immigration issues.

Raids are directed against minorities. There are tons of Russians going to Trump properties to have their babies but they dont get raided.

[quote] But again, they can’t be drafted or forced to pay taxes. The responsibility for citizenship isn’t theirs.

Tourists, in fact, are forced to pay federal taxes, like the tax on gasoline and such. Jurisdiction does not separate laws the way you describe

[quote]If it’s such a positive, why don’t European countries have the same?

Turn it around: if it's such a negative here in the U.S., why are people having so much trouble coming up with examples of how the U.S. has been harmed?

More American citizens means more tax collections no matter where they live. Sounds fine to me

Income tax r321.

[quote] Turn it around: if it's such a negative here in the U.S., why are people having so much trouble coming up with examples of how the U.S. has been harmed?

Like most policies proposed by the right, it's about preventing brown people from benefiting

R324, Income tax is just one kind of tax. Heck, it's even just one kind of federal tax.

Why would only income tax define "responsibility"? You're cherry picking

Economists say that the only surefire way to increase the economy by the Trump-promised 5% is to increase the number of Americans by 40 million.

Only immigrants are doing that

I’m not only defining tax as a responsibility. Just one of them.

r307 Expanding on your correct points, "subject to jurisdiction" explicitly removes all Diplomats and their children from citizenship. Recall, if you may, the laws of the time which granted citizenship within 2 years of entering the United States. The 14th extended the same franchise to all persons of African heritage who were here, involuntarily, as slaves - without the waiting period, and granted citizenship to their families and children: not as immigrants, but as natural born citizens.

That's all it did but it was pretty damn profound. We should be proud of the 14th. The 14th was followed in a few years by the 15th, which is no less at risk. The right to vote and in section 2 gave Congress the authority to enforce what had previously been a reserved power under the 10th for the States.

If we let these bastards attack the 14th, they'll go after the 15th. Were I running the Democratic Party national ad campaign, I'd have those images of Trump declaring he's a nationalist with the B roll in the background of that group in Georgia burning swastikas to remind everyone just what the only fuck is actually at stake in this country.

R328, it still doesn't matter. Jurisdiction does not mean what you claim it does. Seriously, just stop. Your points are ridiculously false.

[Quote]Turn it around: if it's such a negative here in the U.S., why are people having so much trouble coming up with examples of how the U.S. has been harmed?

Turn it around again. If it’s such a positive, why aren’t citizens of the other 165 countries in the world clamoring for such a law?

R331, if you can't answer the question, that's fine, but you're the one advocating for the change. If you can't come up with a good reason for that change, why should we take you seriously?

I asked the question first though.

I mean I’d love to go to Paris and drop a kid and have an anchor on France. But they don’t allow it. Why not?

R333, I repeat: you're the one advocating for the change. If you can't come up with a good reason for that change, why should we take you seriously?

I hail from pioneer stock from the 1600s. Latest ancestor arrived 1827. Rest are indigenous. Thanks for playing R282. There was no statue or Ellis Island for my kind. That's the reason for my incredible stamina and other traits not prevalent in those whose ancestors arrived in the harbor since the late 1800s on.

[quote]Latest ancestor arrived 1827.

Which means that their children enjoyed birthright citizenship. Thanks for playing, R335.

R283 ww

r333 the logical answer is "it's France, not the United States and therefore not subject to your whims?". The question here is the US Constitution. If post hoc ergo propter hoc is your best shot, you should stick with the sally port. It's over there.

Jurisdiction: the official power to make legal decisions and judgements. Authority, control, power, dominion, rule...

[quote]If you can't come up with a good reason for that change, why should we take you seriously?

Money. Is that a good enough reason?

Thank you for confirming that your initial point about jurisdiction was wrong, R339.

And no, that's not a good enough reason unless you can come up with an actual monetary cost and tie that back to the 14th Amendment.

"I want to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the 14th Amendment because 'money'. Who's with me?"

Seriously?

R302, we need kids? Yeah kids growing up in functional homes. We don't need the kids of peasants!

It’s always about money r341. Are you new to this planet?

R343, if you can't come up with any real reason, why are you here, exactly? Just admit that you have no idea what you're talking about and move on.

But I’m not wrong r340. The US government does not have complete and total jurisdiction over everyone in the country. Try conscripting a foreign tourist and forcing them to federal jury duty. Can’t do it. No jurisdiction.

R345, we're talking about *legal* jurisdiction. Everyone on U.S. soil, with the exception of a few foreign embassy personnel, is absolutely subject to the legal jurisdiction of the United States. Period. This has been settled case law for at least a couple of centuries. Just stop, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and you're just making shit up.

What case laws genuinely settled the matter r346?

It's also codified in law:

The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include:

(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;

(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;

515.330 notes:

(a) The term person within the United States, includes:

(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;

[bold](2) Any person actually within the United States;[/bold] (emphasis added)

Any person actually within the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations.

Let us just worry about our own souls. Current American citizen wellbeing, our animal population trumps any foreigner. End of.

r345 Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to try matters within a geographic area, such as the borders of the United States. The US Constitution asserts its jurisdiction as the entire US and its territories. I think you're attempting to challenge the Supremacy Clause, which is remarkably dense of you.

From Wikipedia:

[quote]Jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a legal body to administer justice within a defined field of responsibility, e.g., Michigan tax law. In federations like the United States, areas of jurisdiction apply to local, state, and federal levels; e.g. the court has jurisdiction to apply federal law.

Note the absence of mentions of taxes or jaywalking.

And, of course, the Supreme Court case from 1898, United Stats vs. Wong Kim Ark

[quote]In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people:

[quote]Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;

[quote]Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has never yet happened in the US proper, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and perhaps other territories); and

[quote]Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes.

All others are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So yes, we've considered that phrase carefully and thoroughly. It just does not mean what you claim it does.

I cannot believe how many people fall for his provocations. Even here on DL. Is this what we should be arguing about a week before the midterms? (Yes, I know we can all chew gum and walk at the same time, I just hate how we let ourselves be torn into multiple directions by him.)

THank you r352.

I disagree r353. I think this is one of his provocations that deserve scrutiny.

Everyone born in the USA of foreign parents should have the right to accept or reject USA citizenship when he is, say, 12.

I would renounce mine in a second if I could without a great deal of hassle.

You couldn't make it that young, R356, not for a decision like that. You'd have to make it at least 18, if not 21.

That's because you agree with him, R355. What I'm saying is, he cannot change the current rules and he knows it. Therefore, he is doing this as a distraction, just before the midterms.

[quote] I mean I’d love to go to Paris and drop a kid and have an anchor on France. But they don’t allow it. Why not?

Different countries have different rules.

Most of Europe has single payer health care. The US doesn't. Are you saying we should do everything France does?

[quote] Everyone born in the USA of foreign parents should have the right to accept or reject USA citizenship when he is, say, 12.

Any US citizen can reject US citizenship at any time. You just have to find a country that will allow you to become its citizen

Fuuuuck that. I couldn't give a shit about Rosa from Guatemala or Chin Chau Wong. I'm concerned about single black mothers living in dangerous slums. I'm concerned about my own people whose ancestors help build this nation since the 1600s.

Let's just invest in our own family. Fuck everyone else. Running around putting our own fires out is what we should be investing in only.

Parasites from shitholes need to refrain and be stopped from hindering our own progression as a nation. As a family.

The world doesn't give a shit about us. They'd love to see us fall. Envious of our success. Always trying to trip us up. The exception being our Canadian cousins because they're family. Extended family but still family.

North Americans are a special breed of humans but that should not force us to concern ourselves with the plight of outsiders. WE EARNED IT. Nobody handed it to us. If you think we're gonna just hand this hard won society to just anyone, think again.

THis requires scrutiny because it's not just from Trump's brain but a constant thought within conservative circles, just like repealing Roe v Wade.

R361, it's immigrants who are holding up America's economy. Study after study shows that immigrants give more to the US than take. Most new businesses are started by immigrants.

So thank Rosa and Chin Chau Wong on your knees for allowing us all to live the American dream.

Those white deplorables are the real parasites

@TheEastsiderLA

Highland Park restaurant owner helps employee smuggle son across the border

(The Eastsider is a gentrification rag)

Fuck you R356! You would renounce your american citizenship? Go back to where your immigrant parents came from.

Spitting in your face, you loser!

R361 thinks he can just put his head in the sand and Rosie from Guatamala will go away. She wasn't created in a vacuum and you helped. It's people like her that come for jobs that others won't take and who, if they're lucky enough to get citizenship, start the most small businesses in this country.

Yes, we need to take care of our own, but we're doing a shit job if the junkies downtown are any indication. Your excuse to ignore these people is just another excuse to ignore the people you're already ignoring.

It's a fucking CLASS issue - Orange homey doesn't give a shit what hole you crawled out of if you have the money to pay to immigrate

Trumpsters are all over this thread.

Racist at R361, the people you're talking about aren't "parasites," they're hard workers whose children, thanks to birthright citizenship and our long tradition of assimilating immigrants, join American society as productive members, no matter how "shitty" the countries they came from were. We welcome the wretched refuse of their teeming shores for good reason: because they bring new ideas, new skills, and sheer manpower. They become doctors, teachers, congresspeople, etc.—except in your little bubble, where post-1827 immigrants are all from races with less stamina.

"Our own" includes a lot more than the northwest European immigrants and their descendants whose vast rural enclaves are currently a hive of opioid addicts and unemployables. Some of my ancestors came here from England before 1650, some from central Europe after 1900. I can assure you they were all equally determined and had equal stamina. Get out of your fat racist head.

R365 is giving us some great examples of why we should keep the 14th Amendment as is.

It would be nice to think that R361 / R365 is just a parody but these days who can tell? It's a fine example of white supremacist, though.

Opponents of the 14th Amendment specifically warned that the text as written would encourage undesirable immigrants, and proponents simply outvoted them.

Thanks, R371. I had read that before but didn't have a ready link to it. This is not new and it's been a favorite of the far right for years. But never with an honest debate. It's always been fear-mongering and pretending that words like "jurisdiction" don't mean what they clearly mean or pretending that the 14th Amendment only applied to slaves and was never intended to cover everyone, despite the clear text of the amendment.

It's nice to have that confirmation of the original intent of the 14th Amendment, that yes, they considered all of these issues and voted to approve it as is, knowing full well that it applied to everyone. This whole thing is bullshit.

Sen. Cowan's point at R371 is about two or three the numbers of California's population pouring in from China. He worries about Californians being driven out of their homes by people with completely alien manners and customs. Well, a lot of Chinese people did come to California and their descendants are pretty much the same as other Californians or other Americans. They certainly haven't driven everyone else out of the state—partly because of racist quotas, but partly because Sen. Cowan and his ilk are paranoiacs.

[quote]I want it retroactive to the illegal great grandparents

If they do that, we could deport Trumpty Dumpty back to Germany. His paternal grandparents were illegal immigrants, and Fred was an anchor baby.

It is very telling that the only First World countries who still offer birthright citizenship are the US and Canada. And Argentina, if they can be considered First World.

Yeah R356. Says the loser who never made it out of first gear his whole life

R356 says -I would renounce mine in a second if I could without a great deal of hassle."

When the hell have you ever achieved ANYTHING that included a "great deal of hassle"?

A clean living environment, college degree, enterprise start up or anything worth having involves a "great deal of hassle". Building the USA to where it stands today took a great deal of hassle.

You would renounce your american citizenship because you don't fit in here and you're bitter.

The american motto of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and when the going gets tough, the tough get going doesn't really describe YOU, does it?

Instilled into the american subconscious this ability and attitude is the reason why we always land on our feet. It can't be bought or willed into a national population. It is earned. It is instinctive to all americans. Americans accept the least vacation time for a reason. Americans consume coffee like it's going out of style. Americans have the uncanny ability to determine which way is down.

Holding an american citizenship is an honor. Holding an american citizenship makes you a member of a society that embodies the spirit in the video below.

...like a dancer

Oh, it's this guy again. I wondered why his stuff sounded familiar. He was doing these same incoherent rants on one of the caravan threads before it got deleted. None of it made any sense and all of it was blatantly racist. Drugs or mental illness would be my guess.

Any US citizen can reject US citizenship at any time. You just have to find a country that will allow you to become its citizen

You are forgetting that you will have to part with 30% of everything you own to be freed of slavery to the IRS when you renounce.

"We need to make abortions illegal in America so we can save the lives of babies who won't be allowed to be American citizens anyway."

Bottom line: peasants have no pride

So won't that make most of us non-citizens, if the only reason I am a citizen is because I was born here, then so are my parents and their parents and their parents, so on and so forth. The only people who would be citizens are people who took the test to become a citizen.

So far, nobody has been able to come up with a single example of how the U.S. has been hurt by the 14th Amendment. It's been active for 150 years. If there were problems, shouldn't we have seen them by now?

Who the fuck are these idiot trolls on this thread posting stupid shit like trying to redefine "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean subject to income tax? Look up how many people were paying income taxes after the 14th Amendment was ratified, moron. The 14th Amendment which, it should be obvious, PRECEDED the 16th Amendment which gave Congress the power to tax income.

And in fact undocumented workers are subject to income tax laws.

Fucking trolls, up your game.

[quote][R190] Impeachment is OFF THE TABLE!

[quote]---N. Pelosi

Yes and do you know why? Nancy Pelosi wants her job as Speaker back. She knows that independents see a political candidate who says they want to impeach the president (of a different political party) as complete poison, and they won't vote for such a candidate.

So, would you rather that she run around demanding impeachment now, with the result being that The Party of Trump completely dominates all branches of government? We'll wait.

Trump and his Attorneys are misinterpreting the 14th Amendment.

Interesting clip of Harry Reid lecturing the Senate on the need to abolish birthright citizenship

I knew that would come up. Here's Harry Reid today:

“In 1993, around the time Donald Trump was gobbling up tax-free inheritance money from his wealthy father and driving several companies into bankruptcy, I made a mistake. After I proposed that awful bill, my wife Landra immediately sat me down and said, ‘Harry, what are you doing, don’t you know that my father is an immigrant?’ She set me straight. And in my 36 years in Washington, there is no more valuable lesson I learned than the strength and power of immigrants and no issue I worked harder on than fixing our broken immigration system. I had the privilege of learning from heroes like Astrid Silva who came to this nation as a little girl and has emerged as a powerful leader. Immigrants are the lifeblood of our nation. They are our power and our strength. This president wants to destroy not build, to stoke hatred instead of unify. He can tweet whatever he wants while he sits around watching TV, but he is profoundly wrong.”

R368 says: -Racist at [R361], the people you're talking about aren't "parasites," they're hard workers whose children, thanks to birthright citizenship and our long tradition of assimilating immigrants, join American society as productive members,"

Hard workers? If they were such "hard workers" then they would have built a society that reflects such a work ethic. The ability to come together for the greater good is a characteristic of "hard workers". You're really sanctioning slavery and indentured servant mentality.

You wanna know who defines the epitome of hard workers?

Americans, Germans, Japanese, Mexicans and Inuits

Not some lowly peasant from china or Rosa from Honduras.

The past and current state of a person's homeland legacy deems its people as "hard workers". Now don't mistake Rosa and her spawns willingly selling themselves into servitude for a cushy existence in the land of her new host as a "hard worker". Willingly offering herself up on the auction block to the highest bidder (Mexico got rejected) while bringing nothing to the table a ni88er makes.

You are okay w/this? No, you aren't. You're punching way above your weight here R368 and you're gonna lose. You are comfortable injecting yourself into discussions and life where you always lose because there has never been any other outcome for you.

Obviously your parents didn't have your back and you come from a trashy family. How do we know this? Your inability to pull back and see your country as your family. Considering your own fellow citizens' best interests as a decent parent looks after their own first and foremost above others.

You have no sense of belonging. Soulless and nationless. You have nothing which is why you're willing to hand over our homes to just anyone. Other people like you who have nothing to lose is where your empathy lies. Misery loves company.

You're a loser. A traitor.

Oh, you poor thing, R388. This is some seriously delusional, and hilarious, shit you're spewing. And no, dear, we're not going to "lose," either the argument or the 14th Amendment, the former because you're a lunatic whom nobody could possibly take seriously and the latter because undoing an amendment to the Constitution is an, intentionally, arduous task.

But hey, you just keep on spewing your incoherent racist bile and we'll just keep right on laughing at you.

[quote] So far, nobody has been able to come up with a single example of how the U.S. has been hurt by the 14th Amendment. It's been active for 150 years. If there were problems, shouldn't we have seen them by now?

We have seen negative effects in the last 15-20 years but historically, immigration has had a positive impact on our developing nation. When a minority becomes a majority, they no longer have to assimilate. A pathway to citizenship and comprehensive immigration reform is what's needed. All employers need to be held accountable as well.

What R353 said. He's playing most of you (including the press) and succeeding. He's just pandering to his looney, brain-dead base of swamp-dwellers, nothing more, nothing less.

[quote]So far, nobody has been able to come up with a single example of how the U.S. has been hurt by the 14th Amendment. It's been active for 150 years. If there were problems, shouldn't we have seen them by now?

The racists think that the mere fact of there being "inferior" races here makes the 14th amendment a problem. Look at R388, calling me a loser and a traitor without actually addressing what I said, talking past all our points to spew his own ahistorical nonsense about how the current state of countries he knows nothing about indicates the quality of all of their citizens. I like how his use of the n-word incorporates the "88" symbol used by neo-Nazis for "heil Hitler." But now that he's revealed himself as a Nazi as well as an ignorant, projecting loon, I'm going to block him.

This is so repulsive. He thinks he's the new CEO of the country, so he can do whatever he wants. The Constitution means nothing to him (except that "2nd Amendment" gets him cheers). I would bet my life that he has never, ever read an article, let alone a book, about the Supreme Court or anything even close to the topic of Separation of Powers or even Constitutional Law in general.

Sick, sad, etc. As he might tweet.

Some GOP leader is pissed about this. And he's pissed about Trump's tweet about Paul Ryan. CNN didn't say who it was though.

I think if the midterms go our way, we will see some Republicans finally start to pull away from him.

"FACT: Donald Trump would end birthright citizenship." -Hillary Clinton

May 5, 2016.

R388 here. TY DL for the onslaught of WWs.

You know. You know how true loyal americans may just be scheming to annex their blacksheep cousins on their mother's side. How about the hippy dippy aunt from the west coast?The sibling you let fall by the wayside in Michigan? BTW, Madonna is guilty on two fronts here. La Manque Anglais act WHILST residing w/Ritchie was an unforgivable high treason sin (3rd offense). Unforgivable just like her acting abilities. A true blue american never forgives or forgets. Just like your father never forgave your grandma.

We're not asking anyone to like the state of their nation. Especially NOT NOW! It'll eventually pass as it always does and america will be addicted to some invention or industry they've created enjoying immense prosperity yet again. History repeats. #1 nation since forever including past empires and forever more. Gold medal in INNOVATION.

Why that cat lands on her feet while Russia and China spin their wheels.

The topic here is considering installing an alarm system and surveillance cams. Protecting our family while we sleep. Racism plays no role for the true blooded american. Weren't global social media sites invented as an American thing in dorm rooms, garage offices? The list of American inventions is almost infinite. Common sense dictates along w/history they're going to spring some new innovative industry on themselves and this world. Exponentially making strides. These strides will be slightly hampered if they invest in such dinosaurs like Rosa and her kids. Skill level of the american will right itself among their population deserting need for unskilled workers like your future generation's load of Rosa and her spawn. Like the cat in the video Americans will convert their lawns including sidewalk patches into sustainable commodities. Mexican landscapers and their nerve jangling tools will be a thing of the past. Lawns of rows of lavender will be a common sight.

So let's just think of our nations as families. Family first. Let us not screw up and give the store away to just anyone. We deserve better and if you have a problem with that then take your low standard ass out of society. Think of future generations cursing us. That's how you think.

MT currently holds a Slovenian passport. However, this may change, along with the origin of her parents' passports.

I only agree with trump on 2 issues. The so called "muslim ban" & this.

R396, you are very funny.

I want whatever drugs r396 is taking. That's obviously some GOOD shit!

No Constitutional right is absolute. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. We’ll have to see what exceptions there are when the mother enters illegally.

R401, the amendment has been in place for 150 years and been the subject of numerous court decisions, including ones by the Supreme Court. How long do you expect to wait for an answer?

[quote]R396, you are very funny.

Nah, too longwinded to be funny. Too in love with the sound of his own voice. But it is amusing that he is blissfully oblivious to how he is perceived.

There are no exceptions, R401. Period. This predates the 14th Amendment. The U.S. has always had birthright citizenship, from the time it was first founded. We have never [italic]not[/italic] had it.

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to come up with any specific issue with this and to provide the data to back up their claim. So far, we've only had a single word, "money," and a vague "We have seen negative effects in the last 15-20 years." But that's it. And that's the foundation you're using to insist that we need to amend the Constitution and change the system the Founding Fathers put in place?

(Obviously, I'm ignoring the racist drivel that our dear little friend is vomiting forth. Nobody could possibly take that seriously.)

R399/R400, right? This shit outta alaska is the bomb. Infused with electricity and adderall.

The funniest thing R399? The estactic energy. The buzz, that hum when the wheels touch down on american soil...for anything is possible.

Like great genetics, you just can't buy that sort of thing.

Want full on hysteria? I'm a naturalized American but a full blooded true blue North American. Been all over this world and hold graduate degrees. Sold my original sovereign upstart for millions. Working on two more. Typical high achieving American. That's how I know America will always land on her feet.

I know talent when i see it

The racist with his weirdly detached talking points reminds me of a troll a year or so ago who derailed a thread by insistently accusing the entire Arab race of "not being creative," in implicit contrast to western Europeans. He kept challenging people to name inventions by Arabs, and when confronted with numerous examples, even whole web pages, he just kept repeating his alt-right talking points.

[quote]They are voting, often against their best interests because of Jesus and homophobia which is rampant in hispanic culture.

Yeah, just look at all of those states where gays have the most difficult time...almost entirely WHITE, but please, keep pretending all of those Hispanics in KY are the problem.

R404, substitute slavery and womens' right to vote.

stay in the shallow end with your floaties

R405 claims to be educated out the wazoo but can’t string any words together to form a coherent thought.

R406 mistaken. I remember that troll. Old racial preoccupation troll donning yet other sockpuppets. I flew out of that thread. May or may have not left comment outing Old Black Racial Preoccupation Troll before flight.😂

Oh, I do so love this ignorant racist at R408. That's his response to asking for a reason why we should amend the Constitution? There's literally nothing there to respond to. All I have to do is point and giggle.

Yeah, R409. He was all over one of those immigrant caravan threads with pages-long posts of largely-undecipherable drivel, almost none of which made sense. But I did like the combination of arrogance and ignorance.

r408, those are good examples of where there are exceptions. Involuntary servitude is permissible when someone is convicted of a crime. A woman (or man) can lose their vote if convicted of a felony. No right is absolute.

Blocked R405 and all the ignorant drivel from the “educated” idiot racist disappeared—like magic!

We're talking about birthright citizenship, R413, not the right to vote. R408's examples were hilariously off-topic.

My work is done.

A conTROLLing life loser, my posts aren't for you. The wider audience. Not you. Never will be about you. You don't count.

Oh, dear, R416. I'm so wounded by your opinion of me. Of course, the fact that you had no answer for, well, anything and you got your ass handed to you does help provide some salve for those wounds.

Leave you with this

One mo' time

Run along, R418, the grownups would like to talk.

Yup, R418 is truly one of the most delusional—and dumb—trolls I’ve seen lately. Congrats!

Impressed that this thread has inspired some interesting discussion. My first thought was that it would be closed in no time and people would just start hurling insults at eachother.

Well, we did do that, too, R421. It wouldn't DL otherwise.

The Nazi Trump can whine and cry about Hispanics for the rest of his rotten life...it does not matter, our country is turning brown.

R423, silly. When and if the country does turn brown it will be the result of asians and caucasians deserting your asses to live in outerspace colonies.😂 You'll try to chase after them but you can't get there on your own volition, right,you racist envious amoeba?

Dream on and accept you live in a 1st class majority caucasian nation. Don't accept it? Continue to watch yourself rot

LOL.... So much for "my work is done" and "leave you with this." He definitely is obsessed, isn't he?

My friend has dual citizenship and went back to check his bank account. There is maybe just 2 thousand in the checking account, he goes back during the holidays and just withdraws a few hundred for various purchases. And last year, the cashier at the bank was asking for his social security number in the USA! This is in Europe. WTF? What biz is it of theirs what my friend's Social Security number is?

Why would she need your SS#? I don't understand, did you ask her why?

Perez Hilton signs on with Trump for this one.

Perez ✔ @ThePerezHilton

I don’t agree with Donald Trump on many things, but I DO think that if a child is born in America to parents who are here illegally that they should not be granted automatic citizenship. And I say this as a liberal and Latina! 3:40 PM - Oct 30, 2018

My friend didn't ask. But I know that if you have a foreign bank account of more than 10k, you're supposed to report it to the IRS. My friend doesn't. My friend is not very bright, he doesn't even know his social security number by heart.

Considering how much harm can be done by someone knowing your social security number, I think I'd have asked for a manager before giving it out.

So quiet...

Whose broad stripes and bright stars?

Ours, motherfuckers ♡

Starts at 1:08

Latina? Is Perez transitioning?

In hindsight I kind of admire this recent troll's attempts to rethink race as a broader construct of nationality, claiming some sort of intrinsic "American" identity as if it were based on DNA, veering between biological and cultural explanations for our ability to "land on our feet like a cat" and rejecting as losers those of us who refuse to accept this destiny. Completely incoherent and unpersuasive, of course, but at least they're trying.

They should put this to a vote in the 2019 elections. Let the citizens decide. Let it just be one issue. Not a democratic issue or a republican issue. No electoral college involved. A straight up vote about how everyone really feels/believes. Just a simple, yes or no question.

I know exactly how it will turn out.

Sorry, R433, but that's not the way Constitutional Amendments work. The Founding Fathers specifically wanted to prevent the "tyranny of the majority." And these "anchor babies" are, by definition, not "illegal immigrants."

But hey, R433, maybe you can finally answer the question I've been asking over and over again:

I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to come up with any specific issue with this and to provide the data to back up their claim. So far, we've only had a single word, "money," and a vague "We have seen negative effects in the last 15-20 years." But that's it. And that's the foundation you're using to insist that we need to amend the Constitution and change the system the Founding Fathers put in place?

Maybe we should have another Hands Across America, lined up and armed on the border to keep the caravan from entering. it would be a good way to bring the country together.

[quote] My friend has dual citizenship and went back to check his bank account. There is maybe just 2 thousand in the checking account, he goes back during the holidays and just withdraws a few hundred for various purchases. And last year, the cashier at the bank was asking for his social security number in the USA! This is in Europe. WTF? What biz is it of theirs what my friend's Social Security number is?

It's probably part of the program that Obama started to make other countries cooperate with the United States to prevent people from hiding money overseas. I don't know what he threatened, but almost all of them are cooperating/complying with the U.S. I think he kind of tied it into something about preventing people from hiding their money and helping terrorists with their hidden money. But really, it was to stick it to rich American fucks who already have 500 legal ways to avoid paying taxes

It ended a lot of countries who were nothing more than tax havens for all sorts of people (especially criminals and rich Americans) hiding their money in order to avoid paying taxes. If I remember correctly, old Mitt Romney had money in some off shore tax haven.

At the very end of the anthem crowd goes crazy with free then brave. Melting. What a great moment in history. Can't be topped in anthem folder forever.

That our flag was still there TF? A little Pacino-ish

It's an ode to the founders who made america possible, followed their hearts and fought on the front lines.

I give them 5 stars ☆☆☆☆☆

Pros at throwing that middle finger, those guys. People of America have proven themselves worthy of a forefather's blush if not beet red -no matter your stripe. It's like their souls have got us.

R436? 😂

WARNING

R436 causes wrinkles. 😂

Ordinarily, I would assume that R436 was satire and I would compliment him on a hilariously stupid suggestion. However, based on the rest of his posts in this thread, I fear that he was sincere.

That's one of the problem of today: how the hell do I tell the satire from the real shit?

R436 writing your comment in eyeliner on my closet's middle panel.

Bowing deeply

Yet exhausted 😂

Oh, I should have known. R431, R438, R439, R440, R442 are all the incoherent racist. So much for "my work is done" and "leave you with this."

He really is a special kind of stupid, isn't he?

Don't feed the trolls, you moron.

R443. My schedule? Check back in 2 hrs. Deal w/u then

R*** thank Buddha i didn't end up posting at the R #of death. You're doomed now pal.

You really need help.

I'm not surprised at all that Perez Hilton is for this. Cubans are complete assholes who think they're better than all the other Latinos. They hate Mexicans as much as racist white people do.

Racist black people, the really poor ones are worse R448. Bedtime for

Harry loves to criticize Trump's inherited money, which was earned by someone doing real work in the private sector in the real world. On the other hand, Harry has never worked a day in his life - his entire 'career' has been on the public payroll !! And is Harry by chance another one of those 'public servants' who has become a multi millionaire on the public payroll? Think Bushes, Clintons, Obama, etc etc etc

That's right r448, look at Ted Cruz.

Or should I say Raphael Ted Cruz?

Only a megalomaniac like Trump would dare amend the Constitution by executive order.

Actually the 14th, 15th and 16th amendments were never valid. The 14th and 15th were done when the South was under martial law and not able to ratify it, also a few other reasons relating to that conditia. The 16th was NEVER ratified by the requisite 36 states, despite the fact that it was declared in the Congress to be "in effect" and nobody had the balls to challenge it.

[quote]And that's the foundation you're using to insist that we need to amend the Constitution and change the system the Founding Fathers put in place?

So much respect on here for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers... from the same people who insist the Electoral College needs to go.

the consitution was flawed from the beginning by the phrase that allows the congress to borrow money. that is the root of all wars and troubles today, there is no reason why a sovereign nation should borrow money at interest from anyone. It has the power to issue it's own money, interest free. JFK was murdered for trying this.

Does anyone really need to be informed that R453 is full of shit?

@ABC7

#BREAKING President Trump says US troops at border should treat rocks thrown at them by migrants as "rifles"

The SA migrant caravans are approaching the US on nasty-ass, broke-ass 1970s Winnebagos and flatbed trucks and by foot. Whereas, the monied EMEA migrants are approaching the US by private jets.

This is getting so good R457

R456 I didn’t even need to read the post. All I needed to see was the poster.

You just know the Mexicans will act as bounty hunters for a few bucks. Gonna get crazy.