https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-s...itizenship

When Fox News calls him out for making factually incorrect statements and questions his ability to do what he wants, you know he has well and truly lost it. Dude's been hanging out with Kim Jong-Un too much.

---

Where is Trump wrong or rewriting the Constitution? The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to not grant automatic citizenship to a person just because they were born here. There aren't many cases of precedents, but those that do exist show that there must be an established "jurisdiction". This would include employment, domicile, legal immigration status, etc. Sounds like Trump is setting this up to actually be challenged and fully interpreted by the Supreme Court. That is good for an immigration system that is quite murky. You sound like your bias is trying to step in the way of progress so that the Amendment can finally be interpreted to precisely show one direction or another.

---

Well, it sucks for Trump that the Supreme Court is left leaning. Oh wait, nevermind.

---

Where is Trump wrong or rewriting the Constitution? The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to not grant automatic citizenship to a person just because they were born here. There aren't many cases of precedents, but those that do exist show that there must be an established "jurisdiction". This would include employment, domicile, legal immigration status, etc. Sounds like Trump is setting this up to actually be challenged and fully interpreted by the Supreme Court. That is good for an immigration system that is quite murky. You sound like your bias is trying to step in the way of progress so that the Amendment can finally be interpreted to precisely show one direction or another.

Illegal immigrants are under US jurisdiction. the only people not under us jurisdiction for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are diplomats and the Security Services that come with them. See US v Wong Kim Ark, 1898.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Where is Trump wrong or rewriting the Constitution? The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to not grant automatic citizenship to a person just because they were born here. There aren't many cases of precedents, but those that do exist show that there must be an established "jurisdiction". This would include employment, domicile, legal immigration status, etc. Sounds like Trump is setting this up to actually be challenged and fully interpreted by the Supreme Court. That is good for an immigration system that is quite murky. You sound like your bias is trying to step in the way of progress so that the Amendment can finally be interpreted to precisely show one direction or another.

If you're on US soil and not under diplomatic immunity, you're under US jurisdiction.

Well, it sucks for Trump that the Supreme Court is left leaning. Oh wait, nevermind.

Funny how you're against judicial activism right up until it benefits your side.

---

Where is Trump wrong or rewriting the Constitution? The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to not grant automatic citizenship to a person just because they were born here. There aren't many cases of precedents, but those that do exist show that there must be an established "jurisdiction". This would include employment, domicile, legal immigration status, etc. Sounds like Trump is setting this up to actually be challenged and fully interpreted by the Supreme Court. That is good for an immigration system that is quite murky. You sound like your bias is trying to step in the way of progress so that the Amendment can finally be interpreted to precisely show one direction or another.

Illegal immigrants are under US jurisdiction. the only people not under us jurisdiction for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are diplomats and the Security Services that come with them. See US v Wong Kim Ark, 1898.

US v Wong, Supreme Court established jurisdiction by... "still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco". As previously mentioned, this has not been tested as it should and most definitely time to test and clean up the murky waters of immigration.

---

Illegal immigrants are under US jurisdiction. the only people not under us jurisdiction for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are diplomats and the Security Services that come with them. See US v Wong Kim Ark, 1898.

US v Wong, Supreme Court established jurisdiction by... "still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco". As previously mentioned, this has not been tested as it should and most definitely time to test and clean up the murky waters of immigration.

There's nothing murky about it. It's been understood and taught since long before i was in school that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. This is not rocket science, and it's only on the table because Trump is trying really hard to become a dictator. If you want to change the Constitution, you amend it. Allowing the Constitution to be changed based on the whims of the President in power is the sort of precedent you'd expect to see out of Russia or North Korea, not the United States.

---

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

Explain to me how someone born in the United States is a foreigner or alien at the time of birth? If that's the case, children born to naturalized citizens or green card holders are not citizens. If someone is in the United States, they are subject to its laws and jurisdiction.

---

I just posted the Authors intent, it's up for debate what is a US Citizen

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

US v Wong, Supreme Court established jurisdiction by... "still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco". As previously mentioned, this has not been tested as it should and most definitely time to test and clean up the murky waters of immigration.

There's nothing murky about it. It's been understood and taught since long before i was in school that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. This is not rocket science, and it's only on the table because Trump is trying really hard to become a dictator. If you want to change the Constitution, you amend it. Allowing the Constitution to be changed based on the whims of the President in power is the sort of precedent you'd expect to see out of Russia or North Korea, not the United States.

Says you. Immigration has a ton of grey area which is why there has been so much round and round about it. The last few Presidents have pushed to test the true intent and limitations, not just this one. To amend it, don't you think it needs to be tabled, tested, and defined prior to? How would you even know what needs to be adjusted or redifined? Once again, your bias is showing. Pretend like this is Obama, Bush, or Clinton and look objectively. There is an issue and has been an issue with the immigration system. As someone that has traveled the world, it amazes me how swiss cheese-like our system really is compared to most others.

---

I just posted the Authors intent, it's up for debate what is a US Citizen

Being of a foreign diplomat is one things, but the author even specifies that *the person in question* must be an immigrant or alien, not their parents. Someone born on US soil has not, at any point in their lives, been an alien or immigrant, therefore they are a citizen by birth. This isn't a question of settled law. It's written in the damn Constitution, and a President attempting to circumvent the Constitution by way of executive order then acting upon that unconstitutional order is impeachable, hopefully imprisonable and/or deportable.

---

There's nothing murky about it. It's been understood and taught since long before i was in school that if you're born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. This is not rocket science, and it's only on the table because Trump is trying really hard to become a dictator. If you want to change the Constitution, you amend it. Allowing the Constitution to be changed based on the whims of the President in power is the sort of precedent you'd expect to see out of Russia or North Korea, not the United States.

Says you. Immigration has a ton of grey area which is why there has been so much round and round about it. The last few Presidents have pushed to test the true intent and limitations, not just this one. To amend it, don't you think it needs to be tabled, tested, and defined prior to? How would you even know what needs to be adjusted or redifined? Once again, your bias is showing. Pretend like this is Obama, Bush, or Clinton and look objectively. There is an issue and has been an issue with the immigration system. As someone that has traveled the world, it amazes me how swiss cheese-like our system really is compared to most others.

This is beyond immigration. About it, yes, but the implications are far beyond it. This is a sitting President attempting to open a loophole that allows the executive branch to rewrite the Constitution, a power explicitly reserved to Congress and the states. I'm surprised some on this board aren't screaming about that, but it's an action taken by their orange crush to stop their imaginary brown bogeyman, so they're cool with it.

---

Explain to me how someone born in the United States is a foreigner or alien at the time of birth? If that's the case, children born to naturalized citizens or green card holders are not citizens. If someone is in the United States, they are subject to its laws and jurisdiction.

Title 31 of the U.S. Code specifically defines the term "persons" on the subject of jurisdiction. That is where it gets debated as of late. Are they a citizen, resident, corporation, organization, association, partnership, legal alien, etc? Some argue because anyone within the US is deserving of equal rights of law, that they should also be afforded all else equal.

---

Explain to me how someone born in the United States is a foreigner or alien at the time of birth? If that's the case, children born to naturalized citizens or green card holders are not citizens. If someone is in the United States, they are subject to its laws and jurisdiction.

Title 31 of the U.S. Code specifically defines the term "persons" on the subject of jurisdiction. That is where it gets debated as of late. Are they a citizen, resident, corporation, organization, association, partnership, legal alien, etc? Some argue because anyone within the US is deserving of equal rights of law, that they should also be afforded all else equal.

Seems pretty simple to me, then. Either all immigrants are exempt from US law and jurisdiction and therefore cannot be detained or deported, or they are subject to US law and jurisdiction and children born to them on US soil are citizens.

Which way would you like to have it?

---

Title 31 of the U.S. Code specifically defines the term "persons" on the subject of jurisdiction. That is where it gets debated as of late. Are they a citizen, resident, corporation, organization, association, partnership, legal alien, etc? Some argue because anyone within the US is deserving of equal rights of law, that they should also be afforded all else equal.

Seems pretty simple to me, then. Either all immigrants are exempt from US law and jurisdiction and therefore cannot be detained or deported, or they are subject to US law and jurisdiction and children born to them on US soil are citizens.

Which way would you like to have it?

It would seem simple to you. If it was cut and dry this would be a nonissue. But playing your game...I would go with all non-citizens and illegal immigrants are not subject to jurisdiction, therefore will be deported immediately by a federal force protecting sovereignty. You want to come here, use the various methods to announce intent through the Embassy or Consulate.

---

Seems pretty simple to me, then. Either all immigrants are exempt from US law and jurisdiction and therefore cannot be detained or deported, or they are subject to US law and jurisdiction and children born to them on US soil are citizens.

Which way would you like to have it?

It would seem simple to you. If it was cut and dry this would be a nonissue. But playing your game...I would go with all non-citizens and illegal immigrants are not subject to jurisdiction, therefore will be deported immediately by a federal force protecting sovereignty. You want to come here, use the various methods to announce intent through the Embassy or Consulate.

I'd agree with you. But if we're going to hold that anyone in the US is subject to its laws, and the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", then children born in the US are also subject to the Constitution, which makes them citizens at birth.

---

It would seem simple to you. If it was cut and dry this would be a nonissue. But playing your game...I would go with all non-citizens and illegal immigrants are not subject to jurisdiction, therefore will be deported immediately by a federal force protecting sovereignty. You want to come here, use the various methods to announce intent through the Embassy or Consulate.

I'd agree with you. But if we're going to hold that anyone in the US is subject to its laws, and the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", then children born in the US are also subject to the Constitution, which makes them citizens at birth.

Agree to a point and that is what is not black and white. There hasn't been anything substantial since the 1800's that points to whether a child born here is automatically a citizen without certain conditions. I think there is a benefit in pushing back against the crowd that says "we've always done it this way" to actually define and put pen to paper so we can move forward. The federal government is notorious for grey areas to benefit themselves specifically and to hamper the people. Get it black and white so there is a fighting chance for the people. I don't agree with Trumps Executive Order plan per say but I do like that it will create conversation and perhaps needed action. He does have a habit of aiming to the extreme, only to come back to the middle to get actionable movement on a topic. Sometimes it is just hard to get past the fact that he comes off as an [BLEEP]!

---

It would seem simple to you. If it was cut and dry this would be a nonissue. But playing your game...I would go with all non-citizens and illegal immigrants are not subject to jurisdiction, therefore will be deported immediately by a federal force protecting sovereignty. You want to come here, use the various methods to announce intent through the Embassy or Consulate.

I'd agree with you. But if we're going to hold that anyone in the US is subject to its laws, and the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", then children born in the US are also subject to the Constitution, which makes them citizens at birth.

We should probably just stop them from having anchor babies.
When they come in for their baby check up with no medical insurance we should ship em all back before the anchor baby is born.

Ta Hell with trying to convince half of our population what words actually mean as opposed to what you want them to mean....
just nip the problem in the bud.

Stop all immigration until a better plan is in place for legal immigration.
All people here illegally should be deported immediately regardless of country of origin, age, religion, pregnancy status....

But I'm sure you all would much rather argue over who is racist and what some dude meant 100+ years ago when trying to write law.

---

Where is Trump wrong or rewriting the Constitution? The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to not grant automatic citizenship to a person just because they were born here. There aren't many cases of precedents, but those that do exist show that there must be an established "jurisdiction". This would include employment, domicile, legal immigration status, etc. Sounds like Trump is setting this up to actually be challenged and fully interpreted by the Supreme Court. That is good for an immigration system that is quite murky. You sound like your bias is trying to step in the way of progress so that the Amendment can finally be interpreted to precisely show one direction or another.

Illegal immigrants are under US jurisdiction. the only people not under us jurisdiction for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment are diplomats and the Security Services that come with them. See US v Wong Kim Ark, 1898.

Not true

---

Paul Ryan:

"Well you obviously cannot do that. You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order."

---