What are your thoughts on birthright citizenship?

I don’t think that Trump has the power to undo Birthright citizenship by an EO. I don’t think he will even try. He might be trying to force a discussion on the topic or he might be trying to make immigration more important in the midterm elections. I think it is bluster. As for it being a common practice, not really. There are 30 countries that have birthright citizenship. They are almost all in North and South America. There are 193 countries on our planet, so we are definitely in a minority.

Birthright citizenship is mandated in the Constitution, and once again we find the fool running his mouth without a clue as to what he’s talking about. He’s just a perpetual source of nonstop embarrassment.

With Congressional backing he could get it done, but like impeachment, neither party wants to open that door. Very slippery slope.

Didn’t you guys have a civil war over this last time it came up?

Just getting his racist, shitty base amped up before the elections.

Is birthright citizenship a good idea? Probably yes. The people who don’t like it are white nationalists and xenophobes who have forgotten that it was non-native Americans who helped build America to what it is.

But it really doesn’t matter what I think. According to the US Constitution, it is legal, and has been for 100+ years.

So until Trump declares a dictatorship and throws out the constitution, it remains the law of the land. Despite all his blathering.

The dictator is winding up the right side, he does not believe in the Constitution only the power of Twitter.

No, he can’t amend the Constitution with an executive order, lmao. Just another lie and misdirection.

Birthright citizenship was to give citizenship to the children of former slaves, and others who were naturalized in the United States. It was not for people whose allegiance and citizenship is in another country.

1867 was a constitutional amendment. The founding fathers were very clear about what they meant in birthright citizenship, and it does not resemble what we do today in America at all.

It was not for people whose allegiance and citizenship is in another country.1867 was a constitutional amendment. The founding fathers were very clear about what they meant

Someone’s confused. Too much AM radio will do that to you.

The founding fathers were not around in 1867. And 14th amendment was very clear – ”“All persons born or naturalized in the United States”. ALL persons.

“I am the child of immigrants” is something people say with pride. Amazing how suddenly it’s urgently important that conservatives spit on all those people and their heritage.

Hatred of immigrants is the current “crisis” for conservatives, the tool making you scared and angry for the election. Every few weeks there’s a new one and the soft-headed will be wetting their beds over it. I’m guessing it will be Iran.

On the New in Canada they interviewed another in the US. ( prob Journalist or Politician?)
That stated that Trump CAN’T change that and does not have the power to do so as President.
Looks like another diverting topic to keep the General Public distracted again..same game same results. I hope the General Public will soon tire of his repeated tactics?
I turn the channel every time I see him on TV to let the media know that they are losing viewers.( cable companies know when customers are on certain channels and log the changes in influx ).
Trump is playing puppet master with the public and the media.

I’m guessing he has a whole closetfull of bombshells in readiness to toss every time there’s a major story that he thinks makes him look bad—or worse, upstages him. He picked this one to offset the Pittsburgh story. Doesn’t matter if they’re true or even possible as long as they grab attention.

I doubt that he’s done this much advance thinking and planning, but his handlers and his lawyers surely have.

Just to be clear, there has been precedence that “everyone born in the USA” does not mean everyone. Look up the story of John Elk. Elk v Wilkins. The year was 1884, 20 years after the passing of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. He was an American Indian that sued a registrar in Nebraska that refused to register Mr. Elk to vote. The registrar cited Nebraska law that had several requirements for being eligible to vote and citizenship was one of them. Elk put forth that since he was born in the US, he should be a US citizen. The SCOTUS disagreed. Despite the wording of the 14th, they determined that was not the purpose of that amendment. It was strictly to deal with the former slaves and their families. To further make this point, there was another law that had to be created, The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, aka the Snyder Act. So the question or the rationale then becomes, if an member of an indigenous people is not automatically granted citizenship under the 14th and a separate law had to be created to give them a road to citizenship, why do we believe that someone sneaking into our land and having a baby should suddenly have citizenship for that baby?
I don’t think that is how the current courts would rule, but it has a certain logic to it.

@seawulf575 Very interesting, I wasn’t aware of that. And as we all know, precedent in the law is a huge deal.

Trump is wrong, and getting bad advice. He is also trying to distract everyone’s attention away from the truly vile shit he is doing.

@seawulf575 The 14th amendment is fairly clear. It says “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 Elk case was an anomaly as it was argued that as Indians belonged to a tribe they were not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It wasn’t very logical or fair even back in 1884 and I can’t see it being used a precedent to deny citizenship to children being born in the US today.

By the way it’s not only US that grants birthright citizenship there are 29 other countries, including Canada

@flutherother So the kids go to foster care and parents are deported, or what happens exactly? Now I’m curious.

~ ~ ~ They’re bring out the 82nd Airborne for border patrol hope the don’t give them “Shoot when you see the whites of their eyes”.

Just ask Trump it would be “fake news” when the use 50 caliber rounds on 4 year olds because they are asking for asylum.

It’s one of our most sensible laws.

More proof of bigotry and hypocrisy by Trump, and his supporters.

@KNOWITALL You should be curious. If you want to know what happens you should visit the White House, knock on the door then shout through the letterbox ” Hello, is any one home?”

@fluther Wow sooo helpful and intelligent. Smh.

I am not defending nor criticizing the President here. Just sayin…

Section 5 of the 14th ammendment says the following The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”

Meaning the provisions of the 14th amendment are somewhat flexible according to the temperament of the legislature.

Presidents Bush, Obama, and now Trump, noting that the Congress appears to be unwilling to actually legislate when it comes to immigration, all decided that somebody needed to do something, so they tried to see what they could get away with by using “executive orders”. I suppose the theory is that by the time the executive order is challenged and gets to the Supreme Court, maybe Congress will actually do their job.

So I figure the current President is merely doing what his predecessors have done. He is impatient with a do nothing Congress, and testing the limits of executive authority.

If it were me, I would spend more time criticizing the legislature, and less time criticizing the chief executive.

I don’t see how giving Congress power to enforce provisions makes them “somewhat flexible”.