Trump tweets for his travel ban as drama unfolds in London

[berdie]

Additionally, individuals are to be vetted before entry into the U.S.  Frankly, in light of what is continuing to happen over in Europe, I think at this point in time we need to place a moratorium on ALL immigration into this country, not just particular areas; and we also need to BUILD THE WALL!!!

I must say I agree with a total moratorium at this point. I never thought I would, but today's times are so strange. A wall maybe a deterrent and stop an open flow, but people determined to cross...will. I guess a wall would be better than nothing.

I hate to think of the Christians and other victims of ISIS. But safe areas in their own worlds are most likely the answer to that. Most really don't want to leave their culture.

[txradioguy]

Additionally, individuals are to be vetted before entry into the U.S.  Frankly, in light of what is continuing to happen over in Europe, I think at this point in time we need to place a moratorium on ALL immigration into this country, not just particular areas; and we also need to BUILD THE WALL!!!

You do realize that the wall is never going to get built like you think it will right?

Even Trump has said as much.

[EC]

A blanket statement like that, is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom

@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.

[berdie]

You do realize that the wall is never going to get built like you think it will right?

Even Trump has said as much.

Although I think even a symbolic wall would be somewhat of a deterrent, it wouldn't stop the problem. In Texas, at least, the river and terrain will be a huge problem.

Myself, I think if we cut off benefits and birth citizenship that could be the answer. I've read that can't be done without a constitutional amendment but I might beg that point. That was not the original intent.

[Oceander]

Although I think even a symbolic wall would be somewhat of a deterrent, it wouldn't stop the problem. In Texas, at least, the river and terrain will be a huge problem.

Myself, I think if we cut off benefits and birth citizenship that could be the answer. I've read that can't be done without a constitutional amendment but I might beg that point. That was not the original intent.

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

[libertybele]

You do realize that the wall is never going to get built like you think it will right?

Even Trump has said as much.

Sure, I understand that monies are not in this budget or the future.  However, I also believe in "never say never".  Perhaps it's foolish, wishful thinking, but eventually we will build a wall, even if out of sheer necessity like several countries in Europe are doing.

[libertybele]

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

Yes, and it doesn't get much clearer that needs to be amended.

[Bigun]

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

AHEM!!! NO it does not!

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

[Elderberry]

Texas violates 14th amendment in denying birth certificates  https://www.tribtalk.org/2015/10/22/texas-violates-14th-amendment-in-denying-birth-certificates/


There will be no quick remedy for the problems faced by the Texas-born children of undocumented immigrants who can’t obtain birth certificates. On Oct. 16, Judge Robert Pitman, Federal District Judge in the Western District of Texas, denied the families’ request for an emergency order that would force the state of Texas to help these children obtain this most basic, and essential, document. While acknowledging the families’ evidence raised “grave concerns” about the treatment of these young citizens, Judge Pitman wrote in his decision that a fuller hearing was needed. Now, the case will go to trial.

[Oceander]

AHEM!!! NO it does not!

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Ahem, yes, it does.

[Oceander]

Yes, and it doesn't get much clearer that needs to be amended.

Yeah, good luck with that one.

[berdie]

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

Does that not refer to slaves that were freed? Not immigrants?

[Bigun]

Does that not refer to slaves that were freed? Not immigrants?

Read the information at the link I posted in my response above @berdie

[Elderberry]

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

by P.A. Madison on September 22nd, 2007 http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/


The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country – an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine – and of course, the question of Indians.

A common mischaracterization of the debates says Senators Trumbull, Cowan and Conness suggested both the Civil Rights Bill and the Fourteenth Amendment would make children born to Chinese or Mongolian parent’s citizens regardless of the condition of the parents. However, this is an erroneous conclusion because they were discussing concerns over whether “race” of the parents could play a role. They were not suggesting locality of birth alone was to be the sole requirement of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, this discussion appeared before the chief authors, Senators Lyman and Howard, provided the proper intended operation of the language.

[truth_seeker]

Heard an opinion on the radio today, that Trump faces "Deep State": with lawyers in the DHS that are cheap labor & open borders, and doing all they can, to obstruct efforts to have greater control of our borders.

[Oceander]

Does that not refer to slaves that were freed? Not immigrants?

Read the language; what does it say?

If you are born within the United States, you are a citizen of the United States and of the State in which you were born.  If it was supposed to be a one-time thing for the freed slaves, it would have said so.  It does not.

[Bigun]

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

by P.A. Madison on September 22nd, 2007 http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/


The Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause differed from the common law rule in that it required owing complete allegiance only to the United States in advance rather than automatically bestowed by place of birth, i.e., only children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits. Under the common law rule it did not matter if one was born within the allegiance of another nation.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, confirmed on March 1, 1866 that children under this class of aliens would not be citizens: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.

During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country – an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine – and of course, the question of Indians.

A common mischaracterization of the debates says Senators Trumbull, Cowan and Conness suggested both the Civil Rights Bill and the Fourteenth Amendment would make children born to Chinese or Mongolian parent’s citizens regardless of the condition of the parents. However, this is an erroneous conclusion because they were discussing concerns over whether “race” of the parents could play a role. They were not suggesting locality of birth alone was to be the sole requirement of citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, this discussion appeared before the chief authors, Senators Lyman and Howard, provided the proper intended operation of the language.

Here is another very good article on the subject.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

[Oceander]

The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is very clear.  If the authors meant something other than what the words say, they should have put that into the Amendment.  They did not.

Too bad, so sad.  If a person is born within the United States, he or she is a citizen.  Period.

[Bigun]

The language of the Fourteenth Amendment is very clear.  If the authors meant something other than what the words say, they should have put that into the Amendment.  They did not.

Too bad, so sad.  If a person is born within the United States, he or she is a citizen.  Period.

BS! Period!

[Oceander]

BS! Period!

As G. Robert Blakey used to say:  read the statute, read the statute, read the statute.  If the language of the statute is clear, then there is no basis for going behind it to the legislative history.  Same thing applies to the Constitution.

[Bigun]

As G. Robert Blakey used to say:  read the statute, read the statute, read the statute.  If the language of the statute is clear, then there is no basis for going behind it to the legislative history.  Same thing applies to the Constitution.

The statute is indeed PERFECTLY clear!  And the framers of it made it PERFECTLY clear what the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. And already pointed out several times on this thread!

[Oceander]

The statute is indeed PERFECTLY clear!  And the framers of it made it PERFECTLY clear what the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. And already pointed out several times on this thread!

You can lead a horse to water, ....

[Bigun]

You can lead a horse to water, ....

But you can't make him think!

[Oceander]

But you can't make him think!

Or read the words that are written there.  They do not mean what you think they mean.  They mean exactly what they say.

[Elderberry]

THERE IS NO ANCHOR BABY LAW!.. http://www.resonoelusono.com/NO_ANCHOR_BABY_LAW.htm


To be a 14TH Amendment ” citizen ” one must not only have been born on U.S. soil but also of been a ” SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ” at the time of birth as written within the 14Th Amendment of The United States Constitution

14TH Amendment U.S. Constitution Section 1:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

” Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof ” means NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE.

This fact is within the Congressional Record and cannot be disputed.
United States Senate in 1866 Sen. Lyman Trumbull (IL):”The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

United States Senate 1866 Sen Jacob M. Howard (MI):

” This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

Most people have not even heard of HR 140. The U.S. Congress has stooped so low since the Founding Fathers of this great striving nation that they have to write a Bill to uphold the 14Th Amendment of the United States Constitution. This Law Already EXISTS! http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/show

The meaning of Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof is outlined in this Fox News Report quite well here: “States Fight To End Birthright Citizenship:”http://video.foxnews.com/v/4487782/states-fight-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

The U.S. Supreme Court has never granted U.S. citizenship to illegal aliens children born on U.S. soil. Domicile foreigners on U.S. soil are NOT THE SAME as illegal aliens.

As for “natural born Citizen” Father of the 14TH Amendment Rep. John Bingham of Ohio confirms in the House on March 9, 1866 that:

” I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being BORN WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF PARENTS (PLURAL) NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY IS, IN THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CONSTITUTION ITSELF, A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”

U.S. SUPREME COURT Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). This is the only Supreme Court PRECEDENT UNILATERALLY defining who a natural born Citizen is even though the case was about women’s voting rights AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN CHALLENGED OR OVERRULED.

In the Minor case the court had to determine if Virginia Minor was a U.S. citizen and in doing so they stated because she was a ” NATURAL BORN U.S. CITIZEN ” BORN OF TWO(2) CITIZEN PARENTS(PLURAL) THERE WAS NO NEED TO DETERMINE IF SHE WAS A SIMPLE ” CITIZEN ” BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN DOUBTS ABOUT THAT DEFINITION AND THEY DID NOT HAVE TO GO THERE.

Minor v. Happersett Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875):

[EXCERPT]
“…IT WAS NEVER DOUBTED THAT ALL CHILDREN BORN IN A COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO WERE IT’S CITIZENS BECAME THEMSELVES, UPON THEIR BIRTH, CITIZENS ALSO. THESE WERE NATIVES OR NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts…..”

The U.S. Supreme Court stated pertaining to this case that it is ” not necessary” to solve the doubts of who a ” citizen ” is because it was “never doubted” that Minor was a “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” born of two (2) U.S. citizen parents(PLURAL) within the United States.

Weakness in the Constitution will cripple the people.