It is my opinion that all this FAUX - news - FAUX interpretation of what the Constitution actually states and MEANS is due to a major factor we have allowed in the public school system and that is the DUMBING DOWN - failure to teach students to THINK not to just fill in boxes or repeat what the teacher (or the mandated books) has told them. I saw some of this beginning when I was in Jr. High. Since I was one who grew up with this mindset - ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY - DO NOT BLINDLY ACCEPT ANYTHING - I didn't play the game that was being put forth in the public schools. Not sure where I developed that line of thought but I'm so glad I did as it has saved me from many problems in my life.
Back when the 14th Amendment was written there wasn't the problem of ILLEGAL INVADERS - the *problem* was the African Slaves and their children - those who were brought here against their wishes and then kept as slaves. Today's current ANCHOR BABIES are no where near the status of those the 14th Amendment was written to cover. I compare it to the other twisting of what WORDS mean - like male, female, and now the addition of the totally confused and this teaching of small children in school all about sew - normal and perverted sex and parents are trained to accept this travesty - just like accepting the false ANCHOR BABY phrasing.
This also fits with my prior post on "IT IS WRITTEN" - Look at how Satan TWISTED what was actually written into his lie to TEMPT Jesus - but Jesus responded with the TRUTH and said to Satan IT IS WRITTEN and then stated what was written. What we have going on today is the TWISTING of what words were written and too many NON THINKING adults accepting that LIES.
Jackie Juntti
WGEN idzrus@earthlink.net
Jer. 2:19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/
PUBLISHED: 06:14 EDT, 30 October 2018 | UPDATED: 09:47 EDT, 30 October 2018
View comments
Donald Trump plans to revoke the citizenship rights of children born to non-citizens and illegal immigrants in the US
Donald Trump plans to revoke the automatic citizenship rights of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.
In an interview with Axios, the president said he wants to sign an executive order ending the practice of giving citizenship to those who conservatives have long termed 'anchor babies.'
Trump, who has long been critical of the practice, said: 'We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end.'
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, written in 1868, states: '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.'
Trump insists he can change the way the Amendment is interpreted by the federal government, without amending the Constitution itself, and can do it through an executive order.
Several Republicans running for president in 2016, including Trump and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, argued at the time that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' refers only to people with a legal right to be in the country.
In a preview of an HBO documentary scheduled to air on Sunday, Trump reveals that 'it was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't.'
+6
It comes two weeks before mid-term elections and after a second migrant caravan (pictured) crossed into Mexico on Monday
+6
The migrants were met by hundreds of federal officers in riot gear on the river bank. It followed a night of violence that left one Central American dead
+6
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR: Donald Trump insists the question of 'birthright citizenship' is open to interpretation
'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order,' he adds.
'It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order.'
The president first articulated his position in August 2015, painting a mental picture for a Fox News Channel audience.
'What happens is, they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,' he said then, adding: 'I don't think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers, some would disagree. But many of them agree with me: You're going to find they do not have American citizenship.'
Some attorneys, he insisted, had advised him that 'It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.'
By then the draw of birthright citizenship had become so powerful that an entire industry -- 'birth tourism' -- had spring up to take advantage.
The Washington Post reported that for between $40,000 and $80,000, some Asian women were flying to New York or California to stay at specialized 'hotels' outfitted like labor & delivery wards. The cost is worth it, they said, because their own application for legal residence would sail through because their babies would have U.S. citizenship.
Poorer women often just sneak across the border, dropping what critics call familial 'anchors.'
The U.S. government has traditionally held that section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains the Citizenship Clause, guarantees that right for all children born on American soil.
WHAT DOES THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE SAY?
'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 sentence that follows specifies citizen rights: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
![[]](https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/E-twFnTm2FVEVYrP30B-X-kPY0wo2F5dXPsUQM79Ota0PvFtd2xW6NjoXIxTCzbAJ48dsBrn7-G01So8hpcL8ehJOn0WhsmXEVJRdwBQowiP0-xmhNi2Wo-KEUCS8CIOkAId0EKm7VRNGxRMBwQXLUPA7IACj8cvVdZpR9UZzReCzgbzK6MBodzSiS7MN-an_aShO21kdc0v3uEWvDjH=s0-d-e1-ft#https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/10/30/13/5572386-0-FILE_In_this_March_23_2016_photo_the_Constitution_is_held_by_a_m-a-2_1540904684911.jpg)
+6
WHAT WAS CONGRESS TRYING TO DO?
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified to help blacks, especially emancipated former slaves, have a chance to integrate into society after the American Civil War by making sure the U.S. states where they lived couldn't sidestep the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans to guarantee their rights to 'life, liberty and property.'
By 1868 Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had freed slaves in southern U.S. states, but they still didn't have the same constitutional rights as citizens. That legal limbo led to the formation of 'Colonization Societies' that sought to remove them from the nationcountry and send them either to Caribbean islands or to Africa.
Some southern states also enacted 'Black Code' laws in a bid to preserve the rights of slave-owners by calling their slaves 'apprentices' who couldn't be removed from their 'service.'
Ohio Republican Rep. John A. Bingham, a friend of President Lincoln, proposed the amendment to remedy these problems, writing specific language to guarantee that any slave born on American soil would retractively be declared a citizen.
Bingham wrote at the time that his text wasn't intended to create any new legal rights, but was 'simply a proposition to arm the Congress with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It hath that extent – no more.'
WHY DO SOME THINK IT NEVER APPLIED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' BABIES?
While the amendment was being debated, Michigan Republican Senator Jacob Howard, who drafted the amendment along with Bingham, said that was never his intention.
'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,' he said.
'It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,' Howard added.
In 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude children of 'citizens or subjects of foreign States [countries] born within the United States.'
Two years later the high court ruled that immigrants can only have automatic citizenship for her child when they – the adults – owe 'allegiance' to the U.S.
HOW DID IT GET IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. It was ratified on July 9, 1868 by three-fourths of the states.
By extending citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision – Dred Scott v. Sandford – which had held that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF TRUMP SIGNS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?
If the president orders that the federal government must treat children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. as noncitizens, two things would likely happen.
States where Democrats control the legislatures and that have Democratic governors would quickly enact laws doing the opposite. And civil rightss groups would sue U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in federal court.
Whichever reaches a full bpoil first – the lawsuits or the question of the federal government's 'supremacy' over state laws – the whole thing will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
Trump has already appointed two justices, creating what some observers believe will be a 5-4 conservative majority. If that holds, Trump will win the debate and his order will stand.
A future Democratic president, however, could undo it – unless the Supreme Court were to declare that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution is correct, and not just that he had the legal right to issue the order.
Back when the 14th Amendment was written there wasn't the problem of ILLEGAL INVADERS - the *problem* was the African Slaves and their children - those who were brought here against their wishes and then kept as slaves. Today's current ANCHOR BABIES are no where near the status of those the 14th Amendment was written to cover. I compare it to the other twisting of what WORDS mean - like male, female, and now the addition of the totally confused and this teaching of small children in school all about sew - normal and perverted sex and parents are trained to accept this travesty - just like accepting the false ANCHOR BABY phrasing.
This also fits with my prior post on "IT IS WRITTEN" - Look at how Satan TWISTED what was actually written into his lie to TEMPT Jesus - but Jesus responded with the TRUTH and said to Satan IT IS WRITTEN and then stated what was written. What we have going on today is the TWISTING of what words were written and too many NON THINKING adults accepting that LIES.
Jackie Juntti
WGEN idzrus@earthlink.net
Jer. 2:19 Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/
Trump to revoke birthright citizenship: President slams 'ridiculous' right of children born to illegal immigrants and vows to end it with executive order
- President said he wants to sign an executive order ending birthright citizenship
- Trump said the current policy is 'ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end'
- Debate over whether he can change meaning of Constitution's 14th Amendment
- Trump believes he can alter the government's interpretation on his own
- Amendment says it only applies to people 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S.
- Bombshell comes a week before mid-term elections and amid national panic after a second migrant caravan heading for the U.S. crossed into Mexico
PUBLISHED: 06:14 EDT, 30 October 2018 | UPDATED: 09:47 EDT, 30 October 2018
View comments
Donald Trump plans to revoke the citizenship rights of children born to non-citizens and illegal immigrants in the US
Donald Trump plans to revoke the automatic citizenship rights of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.
In an interview with Axios, the president said he wants to sign an executive order ending the practice of giving citizenship to those who conservatives have long termed 'anchor babies.'
Trump, who has long been critical of the practice, said: 'We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end.'
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, written in 1868, states: '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.'
Trump insists he can change the way the Amendment is interpreted by the federal government, without amending the Constitution itself, and can do it through an executive order.
Several Republicans running for president in 2016, including Trump and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, argued at the time that the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' refers only to people with a legal right to be in the country.
In a preview of an HBO documentary scheduled to air on Sunday, Trump reveals that 'it was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't.'
+6
It comes two weeks before mid-term elections and after a second migrant caravan (pictured) crossed into Mexico on Monday
+6
The migrants were met by hundreds of federal officers in riot gear on the river bank. It followed a night of violence that left one Central American dead
+6
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR: Donald Trump insists the question of 'birthright citizenship' is open to interpretation
'You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order,' he adds.
'It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order.'
The president first articulated his position in August 2015, painting a mental picture for a Fox News Channel audience.
'What happens is, they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,' he said then, adding: 'I don't think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers, some would disagree. But many of them agree with me: You're going to find they do not have American citizenship.'
Some attorneys, he insisted, had advised him that 'It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.'
By then the draw of birthright citizenship had become so powerful that an entire industry -- 'birth tourism' -- had spring up to take advantage.
The Washington Post reported that for between $40,000 and $80,000, some Asian women were flying to New York or California to stay at specialized 'hotels' outfitted like labor & delivery wards. The cost is worth it, they said, because their own application for legal residence would sail through because their babies would have U.S. citizenship.
Poorer women often just sneak across the border, dropping what critics call familial 'anchors.'
A look at the 14th Amendment's 'anchor baby' clause
President Trump says he wants to order the end of automatic citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants born in the United States.The U.S. government has traditionally held that section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which contains the Citizenship Clause, guarantees that right for all children born on American soil.
WHAT DOES THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE SAY?
'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 sentence that follows specifies citizen rights: 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'
+6
WHAT WAS CONGRESS TRYING TO DO?
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed and ratified to help blacks, especially emancipated former slaves, have a chance to integrate into society after the American Civil War by making sure the U.S. states where they lived couldn't sidestep the efforts of Abraham Lincoln and other Republicans to guarantee their rights to 'life, liberty and property.'
By 1868 Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had freed slaves in southern U.S. states, but they still didn't have the same constitutional rights as citizens. That legal limbo led to the formation of 'Colonization Societies' that sought to remove them from the nationcountry and send them either to Caribbean islands or to Africa.
Some southern states also enacted 'Black Code' laws in a bid to preserve the rights of slave-owners by calling their slaves 'apprentices' who couldn't be removed from their 'service.'
Ohio Republican Rep. John A. Bingham, a friend of President Lincoln, proposed the amendment to remedy these problems, writing specific language to guarantee that any slave born on American soil would retractively be declared a citizen.
Bingham wrote at the time that his text wasn't intended to create any new legal rights, but was 'simply a proposition to arm the Congress with the power to enforce the Bill of Rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It hath that extent – no more.'
WHY DO SOME THINK IT NEVER APPLIED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS' BABIES?
While the amendment was being debated, Michigan Republican Senator Jacob Howard, who drafted the amendment along with Bingham, said that was never his intention.
'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,' he said.
'It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States,' Howard added.
In 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude children of 'citizens or subjects of foreign States [countries] born within the United States.'
Two years later the high court ruled that immigrants can only have automatic citizenship for her child when they – the adults – owe 'allegiance' to the U.S.
HOW DID IT GET IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866. It was ratified on July 9, 1868 by three-fourths of the states.
By extending citizenship to everyone born in the U.S., the amendment nullified an 1857 Supreme Court decision – Dred Scott v. Sandford – which had held that those descended from slaves could not be citizens.
WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF TRUMP SIGNS AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?
If the president orders that the federal government must treat children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. as noncitizens, two things would likely happen.
States where Democrats control the legislatures and that have Democratic governors would quickly enact laws doing the opposite. And civil rightss groups would sue U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in federal court.
Whichever reaches a full bpoil first – the lawsuits or the question of the federal government's 'supremacy' over state laws – the whole thing will likely end up at the Supreme Court.
Trump has already appointed two justices, creating what some observers believe will be a 5-4 conservative majority. If that holds, Trump will win the debate and his order will stand.
A future Democratic president, however, could undo it – unless the Supreme Court were to declare that Trump's interpretation of the Constitution is correct, and not just that he had the legal right to issue the order.
No comments:
Post a Comment