Exactly - and the historical record shows that unequivocally.

Liberals do not want a constitutional interpretation based on original intent and strict construction - they want the Orwellian Bolshevik Humpty Dumpty
version that is malleable to be whatever they want it to be.


“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

You guys want to agree with your interpretation of the amendment or some scholar you you agree with, but when the left uses the same arguments and uses legal scholars, you say they are wrong, they want activist judges, they are taking our rights. You can't have it both ways. The constitution is what the constitution says and it doesn't change over time.

I do not like that part of the 14th amendment. But, it is there and it is clear from the plain meaning of the words what it means. You have to look at the plain meaning of the words, not what you opine was the intent. I have always been an admirer of Hugo Black who said, he would vigorously defend the "plain meaning" of the constitution.

I think Trump is setting this up for the SCOTUS to rule on for AFTER his replacement of Ginsburg. And after 2 election cycles that put more Republicans in the House and Senate. He'll go ahead and get it out there and push for the amendment and have 6 years to get it done.

I agree. I am no fan of anchor babies but this needs to be done the proper way. Dangerous precedent to set here unless you are damn sure that there will never be another democrat in the White House.

There is no reason to look at the intent when the language is clear. You say the words are what they are, but then you want to look at original intent. That isn't letting the words be what they are. The words have plain meaning.

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

What plain reading of that sentence leads you to think that it doesn't apply to any child born here?

And before you say the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" chances it, show me someone born here that isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the US. (other than the child of a diplomat.)

If this slides through President Booker is going to Executive Order the 2nd Amendment right out of existence in 2024.

"What plain reading of that sentence leads you to think that it doesn't apply to any child born here? "

First, Constitutional interpretation isn't based on the way the statutes are construed, which is what you are suggesting.

Second, Constitutional interpretation is based on what was meant and intended - and it not debatable here - it was meant to make clear
that children of slaves were legal citizens, just as white people's children and other legal citizen's children were - - not people entering
the country illegally to pop out an anchor baby.

Let me be clear. I disagree with anchor babies. I think the amendment should be changed. But, I don't like the use of executive orders on constitutional issues. This leaves the door way to open for abuse. Everyone on this site was all up in arms when Obama did it, and now they are applauding Trump. If It is wrong for one of them to do it, and it was, then it is wrong for both of them to do it.

President Booker? hahahaha, that nut case will never get elected..... the left is being exposed for the fruits they are and it starts with him!!

Great, show me that in the text of the constitution.

x1000

I agree.

But this situation is totally different - it was not until the 1960s that the federal government STARTED the present *interpretation* of the 14th condoning
anchor babies.

That is a key distinction here.

DING DING DING.. Common Sense

The one and only president that signed an executive order going against the 14th amendment was a democrat named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It took away any and all rights of American citizens of Japanese descent. Our government also seized all their property and put them in internment camps.

In my opinion no president should ever have this power no matter what political party he is affiliated with.

The 14th obviously needs rewording. I think we can all agree on that. If a cross section of knowledgeable and good people on Aldeer can disagree on the definition of words and what they mean, then it needs correction to remove doubt.

In 1981, an illegal who was here outside of any lawful entry who gave birth 1 inch inside the border did not have citizenship granted to that child at birth merely based on the geographic location of the birth.. Same in 1950, 1920, 1899...etc...That was the law of the land based on the Constitution. So what changed? The Brennan footnote in 1982 erased all of that.

It makes no logical or rational sense for our nation, founded the way it was and standing for what it is, to give away consent to illegals.

Also, I'd love for the current court to rule on it again. If Brennan can change the whole concept of citizenship with a footnote in 1982, then the current Scotus can change it back to what it meant for the 100+ years prior to that decision. There is plain meaning in that too.

If everyone here is under the full "subject to the jurisdiction", then why even have that language in there if it is so plain?
If everyone here, legal or illegal is under the full " subject to the jurisdiction", then why can't illegals vote or hold office legally? Why...because there is a correct process of consent that has to be followed for citizenship and the privileges and rights that come with it.

I'll have to just respectfully agree to disagree.
Great discussion guys.

Wrong.

That is not even what is going on here.
People need to pay closer attention.

This is NOT about "changing" the 14th Amendment - it is about going by what it actually says and means and what is was written to mean,
and which the whole country understood and went by - until the 1960s liberal takeover.

>>>>>>Are people even aware that the U.S. is the ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that allows non citizens to have a baby on
its soil and the child is automatically a citizen???

There is no other country in the world that allows that.
And ours didn't until the 1960s.
And there is nothing in any of the federal immigration laws that allow for it.
It has been PURELY a matter of interpretation and application by those in power in Washington.

I totally get that.

The only difference I see here is that an EO that goes back to what was the law for 100+ years prior to 1982 isn't necessarily eroding the Constitution. Otherwise, I can see and agree with the dangers of Executive Orders.

I agree with straycat that it has to go back to it’s original intent. The problem I also have with anchor babies is that even though they are considered legal citizens that doesn’t mean that their parents are. So what are the parents going to do? Leave and go back to their country and take the child with them? NO! They are going to stay here and milk the laws the liberals put in place to get all the free government give always they can get. When legally they should be deported. Is that cold hearted to the liberals yes and I don’t care because,

Our country is 23 trillion dollars in debt! The free loaders have got to go!

I made that same point to a co-worker this morning

Just for discussion, what are the problems with an Executive Order like this example:

"At the signing of this Executive Order, US citizenship shall be granted at birth to children who are born to Legal US residents (who are not citizens or whatever specific language that is the standard here) or to current US citizens. Children born in the United States boundaries or territories to illegal immigrants, persons in an unlawful status, temporary workers, visitors, or diplomats (add any other classifications) occupying or residing in the United States boundaries or territories shall not be granted US citizenship at birth. "Subject to the jurisdiction therof" in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution shall apply only to Legal US Residents and Legal US Citizens in regard to birthright citizenship of children"

Now I just penned this myself...so don't rake me across the coals with legal issues that I did not see )

Questions....

The subject of all this discussion is on birthright citizenship being granted to any child born on US soil by anyone practically...all about geography.
So an UNBORN person is given citizenship rights on paper based on some interpretations of the 14th? The person isn't even born yet, right? Just waiting for the birth to happen on US soil.
So how could Trump or any President do something unconstitutional through EO on the 14th to someone who doesn't even exist yet?
This is not taking away rights to someone living....this is restricting consent to someone who is not even alive at the moment of the executive order, if it were to ever happen.

Don't the Progressive liberals and democrats all say that a child is just tissue until they are actually born, without rights and personhood?
But now, by magic of the mind, these unborn children suddenly do have rights to citizenship? How do they get there through any logical reasoning?
I'm all for the right to life and protection of the unborn as a human right....but that doesn not mean they have to be granted US citizenship based on the geographic location of the physical birth.