ADVERTISEMENT

Trump Says He Will Void Birthright Citizenship Law Through Executive Order

NinjaKnight

Todd's Tiki Bar
Feb 18, 2007
24,932
4,316
113
President Trump is planning to use an executive order to strip birthright citizenship from America's laws, rather than trying to change the Constitution through an act of Congress. The potential move, which would likely trigger numerous legal challenges, would seek to end the conferring of citizenship to children of noncitizens who are born in the U.S. — which is currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.



Remember when the biggest complaint about Obama was his excessive use of Executive Orders?

I'm sure the same people will be complaining about Trump's illegal use of them*
 


Can't pass up this gem:
Trump added, "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous, and it has to end."

Birthright citizenship is the law of at least 30 countries, including many U.S. neighbors in North and South America. All of the countries in Europe grant citizenship by jus sanguinis — by "right of blood.

Jesus fuking christ you people elected a legit idiot. Dementia.
 
Another example of his Authoritarian impulses that only our system keeps him in check. And compromised Lindsay Graham is batting cleanup for him. Playing up fear of 'the outsider' and people that look brown and different than you...but he's not Fascist.

Either way he's a terrible human being, every Hispanic in Florida knows at least 1 family member or friend born here under these circumstances.

Republican Senator Marco Rubio is a U.S. Senator bc of Birthright Citizenship.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
I have no problem with that at all, lest we get more of this ...

im-31982


The 14th Amendment is being horribly misused by the left. As intended, it was one of three 'Reconstruction Amendments' designed to safeguard the rights of native Americans and freed slaves in the face of rulings such as Dred Scott vs Sanford and the 3/5 Compromise. If nothing else, we need to reevaluate the merits of this Amendment and establish the legality of using it to provide safe harbor for a swarm of 14,000 people that are bypassing three countries that have offered work visas in order to reach Estados Unidos.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with that at all, lest we get more of this ...

im-31982


The 14th Amendment is being horribly misused by the left. As intended, it was one of three 'Reconstruction Amendments' designed to safeguard the rights of native Americans and freed slaves in the face of rulings such as Dred Scott vs Sanford and the 3/5 Compromise. If nothing else, we need to reevaluate the merits of this Amendment and establish the legality of using it to provide safe harbor for a swarm of 14,000 people that are bypassing three countries that have offered work visas in order to reach Estados Unidos.
Chum for the racists before the election
 
  • Like
Reactions: firm_bizzle
President Trump is planning to use an executive order to strip birthright citizenship from America's laws, rather than trying to change the Constitution through an act of Congress. The potential move, which would likely trigger numerous legal challenges, would seek to end the conferring of citizenship to children of noncitizens who are born in the U.S. — which is currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.



Remember when the biggest complaint about Obama was his excessive use of Executive Orders?

I'm sure the same people will be complaining about Trump's illegal use of them*

I agreed with most of Trumps, he was simply reversing illegal Ex orders that Obama had done.
I agree with what he wishes to do here, but doubt he has the legal right to do it. It will be an interesting question to be placed in front of supreme court. The 14th was designed to protect freed slaves, and their children after the civil war, but the wording is such that it does/may go much further.
 

Can't pass up this gem:
Trump added, "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous, and it has to end."

Birthright citizenship is the law of at least 30 countries, including many U.S. neighbors in North and South America. All of the countries in Europe grant citizenship by jus sanguinis — by "right of blood.

Jesus fuking christ you people elected a legit idiot. Dementia.

Basically only Canada practices birthright soil citizenship and is one of our peer nations.

Western Europe doesn't practice it and neither does Australia.

30 countries sounds like a lot until you realize there are 195 countries.

Definitely not the majority position
 
Basically only Canada practices birthright soil citizenship and is one of our peer nations.

Western Europe doesn't practice it and neither does Australia.

30 countries sounds like a lot until you realize there are 195 countries.

Definitely not the majority position
Then change the constitution.
 
President Trump is planning to use an executive order to strip birthright citizenship from America's laws, rather than trying to change the Constitution through an act of Congress. The potential move, which would likely trigger numerous legal challenges, would seek to end the conferring of citizenship to children of noncitizens who are born in the U.S. — which is currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.



Remember when the biggest complaint about Obama was his excessive use of Executive Orders?

I'm sure the same people will be complaining about Trump's illegal use of them*

Crack attack moron president strikes again.
 
Trump doesnt have the authority to do this, but I am glad he is bringing it up. The 14th amendment is one of the most cited and in my opinion, misused, amendments in SCOTUS over the last century. There needs to be some discussion about the intent of the authors for clarification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
If nothing else, we need to reevaluate the merits of this Amendment and establish the legality of using it to provide safe harbor for a swarm of 14,000 people that are bypassing three countries that have offered work visas in order to reach Estados Unidos.

I have no earthly idea how in the hell Trump's call to end birthright citizenship has anything whatsoever to do with "providing a safe harbor" for "a swarm" of refugees, but it did give you a few 'Trump points' towards your fear-mongering quotient for the day. Attaboy! :)
 
i recently removed him from ignore so that i could start reporting his posts to the mod.

:joy::joy:
lmao jesus christ what a whiny little bitch move

Why aren't you reporting 85's personal attacks? Instead you are liking them. What a fuking hypocrite.

wayne epitomizes all that is wrong with america. but also why I love this board. So much fuking butthurt, this is hilarious. Glad I have such an impact on you Wayne. :joy:
 
Last edited:
I have no earthly idea how in the hell Trump's call to end birthright citizenship has anything whatsoever to do with "providing a safe harbor" for "a swarm" of refugees, but it did give you a few 'Trump points' towards your fear-mongering quotient for the day. Attaboy! :)
Since you evidently have zero capacity for rational thought, allow me to break it down for you:

1. Arrive illegally
2. Drop a baby on U.S. soil
3. Brat is automatically a citizen despite neither parent being a citizen
4. Mom ends up getting a green card in order to watch over the child
5. Chain migration begins
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
The amendment says parents must be under US jurisdiction. If you come in illegally have you put yourself under US jurisdiction? That is the legal argument to be answered by the courts. Short term fix is rent a chunk of land on Mexican side, fence it in and make tent city for family's with Pregnant women. Let the kids be born in Mexico while awaiting hearing.
Long term is try and Pass new amendment. The reason for having this one is long past.
 
Since you evidently have zero capacity for rational thought, allow me to break it down for you: My responses in red.

1. Arrive illegally. They are currently in Mexico and have indicated they are interested in applying for asylum in the U.S. Guess what? That's not illegal.
2. Drop a baby on U.S. soil. "Drop a baby"? Careful there. You're awfully close to showing your true colors.

The rest of your fear-mongering requires the asylum seeker to be: a) granted admission by US Immigration; and b) pregnant with child -- or in your language - "pregnant with brat."

3. Brat is automatically a citizen despite neither parent being a citizen.
4. Mom ends up getting a green card in order to watch over the child
5. Chain migration begins
 
The amendment says parents must be under US jurisdiction. If you come in illegally have you put yourself under US jurisdiction? That is the legal argument to be answered by the courts. Short term fix is rent a chunk of land on Mexican side, fence it in and make tent city for family's with Pregnant women. Let the kids be born in Mexico while awaiting hearing.
Long term is try and Pass new amendment. The reason for having this one is long past.
Since Mexico would never willfully give up its gravy train, how about we try this instead. Create a wall/prison/detention center along the entirety of the southern border and declare that area a neutral zone which technically wouldn't be full U.S. territory. House the criminal illegals there and let them loose on the Mexican side once they serve out their term.
 
Last edited:
It's not really asylum when they walk past 3 other countries and decline work visas and citizenship in Mexico in order to travel another thousand miles just to make it here to the U.S. Same thing with the Syrian refugees that bypass Turkey and Saudia Arabia just so they can trek another 1000 miles towards the U.K.
 
Last edited:
Trump is brilliant! Void the Libs birth certificates and then have them deported! #maga
 
Since Mexico would never willfully give up its gravy train, how about we try this instead. Create a wall/prison/detention center along the entirety of the southern border and declare that area a neutral zone which technically wouldn't be full U.S. territory. House the criminal illegals there and let them loose on the Mexican side once they serve out their term.
I am with you. I am also for repealing the 14th amendment. It was put in place to deal with the children of slaves, so they would not be rounded up and shipped back to Africa. There was a need for it at the time, there no longer is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
I am with you. I am also for repealing the 14th amendment. It was put in place to deal with the children of slaves, so they would not be rounded up and shipped back to Africa. There was a need for it at the time, there no longer is.
Totally agree in principle, but also know that the dirty pool dems would declare it an attack on Af-Am rights, the way they tried to do so when GWB was hesitant to extend the now-outdated Voting Rights Act.

This may actually be more up the avenue of our friendly neighborhood SCOTUS to help clarify and define going forward. And while they're at it, SCOTUS could do us another solid and strike down Plyler vs Doe, which gives illegal kids access to "free" public education.

Take away the carrots and watch the rabbits scurry off ... hopefully up to Canada.
 
Last edited:
The 14th amendment was never properly ratified. It should never have been ratified because the Southern states were all against it but the Radical Republicans forced it on them. And so for that reason, and because it goes against the original intent of the Founding Fathers for this country to be for Whites, I don't recognize it. So how do you like that, Sam? Take your 14th amendment and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

It was also just to grant citizenship to the Black slaves (it didn't even make the "Native Americans" citizens), and even then they were still segregated and treated as second-class citizens (even in the North) until the 1960s, and the U.S. still had a pro-White (other than the idiotic mistake of allowing boatloads of you Yids straight from the shtetls of Eastern Europe) immigration policy until the 1960s. The 14th amendment didn't destroy White America, the Immigration Act of 1965 (written by a Jew, Emanuel Celler) did.

But the good thing about a constitutional amendment is that it could someday be repealed. Thank God for Trump #MAGA
 
The 14th amendment was never properly ratified. It should never have been ratified because the Southern states were all against it but the Radical Republicans forced it on them. And so for that reason, and because it goes against the original intent of the Founding Fathers for this country to be for Whites, I don't recognize it. So how do you like that, Sam? Take your 14th amendment and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

It was also just to grant citizenship to the Black slaves (it didn't even make the "Native Americans" citizens), and even then they were still segregated and treated as second-class citizens (even in the North) until the 1960s, and the U.S. still had a pro-White (other than the idiotic mistake of allowing boatloads of you Yids straight from the shtetls of Eastern Europe) immigration policy until the 1960s. The 14th amendment didn't destroy White America, the Immigration Act of 1965 (written by a Jew, Emanuel Celler) did.

But the good thing about a constitutional amendment is that it could someday be repealed. Thank God for Trump #MAGA

GD right! If you have hate in your heart let it out! If you don't like "Will & Grace", don't mean there's something wrong with you! Means there's something wrong with Will; he's a homosexual! #MAGA
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
GD right! If you have hate in your heart let it out! If you don't like "Will & Grace", don't mean there's something wrong with you! Means there's something wrong with Will; he's a homosexual! #MAGA

What does the 14th amendment have to do with homosexuality?
 
ADVERTISEMENT