Trump tweets for his travel ban as drama unfolds in London

[DiogenesLamp]

Preventing automatic citizenship at birth will require a constitutional amendment, not just a change in current immigration law.

I would merely require a correct interpretation of existing law.    It would require clarification regarding
Wong Kim Ark.   


It was clearly not the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to make citizens out of the children of aliens. 

[DiogenesLamp]

@truth_seeker

Thank you. I get real tired of continually correcting the idea that we don't have guns. 

However - most people don't. They didn't when you could buy one in the pawn shops either - I think about four people I knew back then had handguns. Most of the people I knew had shotguns and rifles, of course, being rural. They all still have their shotguns and rifles.

[DiogenesLamp]

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment directly grants citizenship as a birthright, and that was the original intent of the amendment.

No it wasn't,  and the first thing we need to do is stop repeating false crap.   The more people repeat it,  the more people come to believe this false crap is true. 


I have read the Congressional debates on the 14th amendment.   The primary author (John Bingham)  clearly stated that this amendment was not intended to apply to the children of transient aliens.   

To wit:  "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."

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

It doesn't get much clearer so long as you take into account the CORRECT meaning of the word "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."   


The Civil Rights act of 1866 was the predecessor of the 14th amendment,  and it is much clearer as to what the congress meant when they said "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."   

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

[EC]

Damn, where'd you find that?! 

Another example of a massively long list of times when the American people stepped up, politicians be damned. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Damn, where'd you find that?! 

Another example of a massively long list of times when the American people stepped up, politicians be damned. 

Among the various other topics which are a hot button for my participation is the subject of gun control.    Arguments I have had with various people have ranged the gamut,   and in the course of my arguments,  I found that poster.   I've kept a copy of it on my computer ever since. 


It comes in handy from time to time.  :) 


There were other advertisements in newspapers and such,   but that poster is the easiest to get the point across.   

[ConservativeGranny]

Not mine.  Mine goes to when this country and our President is going to get honest with the public and tell us about the terrorist camps in America?  Mine goes to what we are going to do about the situation growing right here in the U.S?  How are we going to stop the terrorist highway from Mexico?  When are we going to make a Federal Law shutting the door on Sharia Law?

It doesn't look like anytime soon. Sadly the State Dept. lifted the restrictions last week on how many refugees are to be allowed into our country. The numbers could double.

While the funding for refugees was restricted in last fall's budget the new budget has no limits or restrictions.

This is a numbers game. They can't defeat us in an all-out attack but they can defeat us more slowly by sheer numbers. This is what has happened in Europe. There is no way Britain can contain this now. They've already lost the war and don't know it yet. They were invaded and actually welcomed the invaders with open arms. Unfortunately we seem to be headed in the same direction.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Not sure if you are being obtuse or snarky, but obviously I am referring to our right to keep dangerous people out of our country.

A lot of people here have attacked Trump's travel ban as not enough.  Maybe not, but it's something and it would help.  They have also called it expensive.  How expensive was the attack in London?

Apparently, the well-known phrase 'creeping socialism' has been forgotten.  Liberals got a lot of things done by creeping.

This travel ban is needed and would be a start.

I asked the question as you said that the court is taking away a right. I have never seen a stated right for a citizen to keep dangerous people out of our country such as you specified.

I do know that the Constitution gives power to the Executive to defend this country.  This is not a 'right' but a designated power to the President.

In my opinion, the power given by the Constitution that clearly gives the Executive the responsibility and power to protect citizens from external threats over-rides any court decision that limits this protection.  The President can simply ignore the court. The fact he chooses not to is his decision, one which might mean he has chosen not to execute his responsibility on the defense of this country.

So I consider that no court has taken away any rights.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I would merely require a correct interpretation of existing law.    It would require clarification regarding
Wong Kim Ark.   


It was clearly not the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to make citizens out of the children of aliens.

I agree, and is the crux of the argument on who is eligible of being a citizen and whether we need another Constitutional amendment, which I for one believe is not needed.

[Chosen Daughter]

It doesn't look like anytime soon. Sadly the State Dept. lifted the restrictions last week on how many refugees are to be allowed into our country. The numbers could double.

While the funding for refugees was restricted in last fall's budget the new budget has no limits or restrictions.

This is a numbers game. They can't defeat us in an all-out attack but they can defeat us more slowly by sheer numbers. This is what has happened in Europe. There is no way Britain can contain this now. They've already lost the war and don't know it yet. They were invaded and actually welcomed the invaders with open arms. Unfortunately we seem to be headed in the same direction.

Sad but true.  Their government has granted them the right to radicalize by approving of their Sharia courts.  They welcomed them with open arms and did not require them to assimilate to the culture.  They have no go zones where they basically do as they please.  Sharia Law zones.  Their government has given their freedom over without a fight.

If we continue to go in the direction by allowing terrorist training camps, Sharia Courts, Female mutilation, call to prayer............. We are abandoning our Constitution and freedom to our citizens.  In Dearborn the Muslims are the majority now.  They have bought out the strip malls and businesses and have run everyone else out of business.  I watched a video of a Christian preacher being stoned by the population at some Fair in Dearborn.  The police did nothing.  Told them to leave.

So disturbing to know that we also have terrorist training camps in over 30 states.  What kind of future for my children?  We need to stop this now before we are like Britain.  Sharia is not compatible with our Constitution.  It denies everyone else of their freedom and rights.

[Chosen Daughter]

No it wasn't,  and the first thing we need to do is stop repeating false crap.   The more people repeat it,  the more people come to believe this false crap is true. 


I have read the Congressional debates on the 14th amendment.   The primary author (John Bingham)  clearly stated that this amendment was not intended to apply to the children of transient aliens.   










It doesn't get much clearer so long as you take into account the CORRECT meaning of the word "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."   


The Civil Rights act of 1866 was the predecessor of the 14th amendment,  and it is much clearer as to what the congress meant when they said "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."   

Thank you for posting that.  Very clear and that was what I was saying too.  "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  Not for foreigners.

[Chosen Daughter]

And Mexico isn't on the list even though they have an ISIS training camp right over the border.  Hardly a word about that wall since our elected officials decided that we couldn't flip the bill for security.  Meanwhile illegal aliens of all kinds continue to flood into the U.S.

Jihadists Train, Plan U.S. Attack from Mexican Border State of Nuevo León

JANUARY 04, 2017


A Jihadi-cartel alliance in the Mexican state of Nuevo León is collaborating to carry out attacks in American cities and ports of entry along the southern border, according to intelligence obtained by Judicial Watch from confidential U.S. and Mexican law enforcement sources. As part of the plan, militant Islamists have arrived recently at the Monterrey International Airport situated in Apodaca, Nuevo León, about 130 miles south of the Texas border.

An internal Mexican law enforcement report obtained by Judicial Watch confirms that Islamic terrorists have “people along the border, principally in Tijuana, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.” Cartel informants tell law enforcement contacts that “they are only waiting for the order and the times to carry out a simultaneous attack in the different ports of entry or cities of the United States of America.” Drug cartels have a working “agreement” with Islamic terrorists, according to a high-ranking Mexican police administrator, who said that men from the Middle East arrive regularly into the country to “train” jihadists.

Judicial Watch sources include veteran law enforcement officials in the U.S. and Mexico as well as longtime undercover informants who have worked for intelligence agencies in both countries, mainly in the crime-infested southern border region. They can’t be identified out of fear for their safety. One seasoned Mexican law enforcement official told Judicial Watch that a key cartel informant verified picking up various Middle Eastern individuals from “evil groups” at the Monterrey Airport in the last few days alone. The informant is extremely credible and has also worked for several U.S. government agencies, Judicial Watch has verified through various federal, state and local sources.

The relationship between Islamic jihadists and Mexican drug operations is nothing new and Judicial Watch has been reporting it for years as part of an ongoing investigation into cartels, corruption and terrorism. The partnership has ignited a major security threat for the U.S. with Islamic terrorists training in southern border towns near American cities. This includes an ISIS training camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Back in 2014 Judicial Watch broke a story about a Mexican-based ISIS operation to attack the U.S. with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED). The threat was so imminent that Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, implemented increased security measures even though authorities publicly denied the plot.

Earlier this year Judicial Watch obtained State Department documents showing that for more than a decade the U.S. government has known that “Arab extremists” are entering the country through Mexico with the assistance of smuggling network “cells.” In 2015 Judicial Watch reported exclusively that Mexican drug cartels are smuggling foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso and they’re using remote farm roads—rather than interstates—to elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers. The foreigners are classified as Special Interest Aliens (SIA) and they are being transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads located around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road – Highway 20. Once in the U.S., the SIAs wait for pick-up in the area’s sand hills just across Highway 20.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2017/01/jihadists-train-plan-u-s-attack-mexican-border-state-nuevo-leon/

Texas Officials Warn of ISIS Threat to U.S.-Mexican Border
by John Rossomando • Jan 26, 2017 at 6:02 pm

https://www.investigativeproject.org/5764/texas-officials-warns-of-isis-threat-to-us#

ISIS Camp a Few Miles from Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirm

Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2017   |   By The Association of Mature American Citizens

https://amac.us/isis-camp-miles-texas-mexican-authorities-confirm/


https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2015/04/isis-camp-near-el-paso-tx-is-not-new-news/

[Emjay]

I asked the question as you said that the court is taking away a right. I have never seen a stated right for a citizen to keep dangerous people out of our country such as you specified.

I do know that the Constitution gives power to the Executive to defend this country.  This is not a 'right' but a designated power to the President.

In my opinion, the power given by the Constitution that clearly gives the Executive the responsibility and power to protect citizens from external threats over-rides any court decision that limits this protection.  The President can simply ignore the court. The fact he chooses not to is his decision, one which might mean he has chosen not to execute his responsibility on the defense of this country.

So I consider that no court has taken away any rights.

What about our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

The President can simply ignore the court?  I don't think so.  Trump has at least tried to protect the country with the travel ban so why are you dissin' on him

Does anyone else think the President can simply ignore the court?  I wish we could ignore all of the courts if they make stupid decisions but ....

[Bigun]

What about our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

The President can simply ignore the court?  I don't think so.  Trump has at least tried to protect the country with the travel ban so why are you dissin' on him

Does anyone else think the President can simply ignore the court?  I wish we could ignore all of the courts if they make stupid decisions but ....

It's been done before!  Several times in fact.  We have three co-equal branches of government.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

It's been done before!  Several times in fact.  We have three co-equal branches of government.

Yes, but some branches are more co-equal than others.

[Emjay]

It's been done before!  Several times in fact.  We have three co-equal branches of government.

Well, then, why doesn't he do it.  He sees the truth here ... I am amazed that London elected a mayor more stupid than New Yorkers were able to do.

[DCPatriot]

Well, then, why doesn't he do it.  He sees the truth here ... I am amazed that London elected a mayor more stupid than New Yorkers were able to do.

Isn't that the truth?

"Give me your children and I'll give you the future".....Adolph

[Bigun]

Well, then, why doesn't he do it.  He sees the truth here ... I am amazed that London elected a mayor more stupid than New Yorkers were able to do.

Because I'm sure he is being advised not to.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you for posting that.  Very clear and that was what I was saying too.  "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  Not for foreigners.

You are welcome.   There are other statements in the 14th amendment debate record that clearly indicate the congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of Aliens.   

John Bingham makes it very clear that the children of aliens are not made citizens through the 14th amendment.   

The 14th amendment was intended to convey citizenship to freed slaves,  and no one else. 

[txradioguy]

You are welcome.   There are other statements in the 14th amendment debate record that clearly indicate the congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of Aliens.   

John Bingham makes it very clear that the children of aliens are not made citizens through the 14th amendment.   

The 14th amendment was intended to convey citizenship to freed slaves,  and no one else.

Wait you mean it wasn't written to allow gays to marry? /s

[DiogenesLamp]

Wait you mean it wasn't written to allow gays to marry? /s

Nor was it intended to ban prayer in public schools,   create a "right"  to abortion,   or any of the other multiple ways in which it's poorly written verbiage has been exploited by liberal courts to push their agenda.   


The 14th amendment is probably the most abused amendment in the Constitution,   and also probably one of the least legitimate in terms of how it was passed.