Trump to terminate birthright citizenship

[DamianTV]

Unbelievable. Lindsey Graham now says he will introduce a bill to end birthright citizenship.

That douchebag just wants to ride Trumps coattails. If he genuinely gave two $#@!s about this country, he would have introduced this bill in his last 73 terms in $#@!ing office.

[devil21]

Interesting! To understand what's going on you have to know the history involved.

The 14th amendment was added during Reconstruction and created the status of "US Citizen", which turned everyone into a "US Citizen", a slave to the government corporations while abolishing private slave ownership under the new 13th Amendment. The original 13th barred lawyers from public office. Eventually, when the UCC was implemented in the 50's, which legislated the process for converting our birth certificates into debt instruments, at roughly the same time the anchor baby policy was enacted. It has been used ever since as an automatic way to create more legal debt slaves for the bankers by creating birth certificates for every anchor baby born here, even to non-US citizens. Anchor baby policy has been one of the biggest ways the bankers have kept the debt issuance game going. The game always needs fresh bodies to securitize! When the Treasury needs to issue more debt, they entice more and more immigrants to come.

Think that's far fetched? Compare the exploding federal budget/deficit to the open border policy of letting in immigrants that pop out 2 or 3 kids quickly. It's all intentional and planned.

Rescinding this anchor baby policy means two things. First, an avenue to judicially change that policy and quite possibly the Constitution itself. Second, if successfully changed it means a big change to how debt is created at the federal level. Anchor babies have been a HUGE part of federal debt funding. The more I see from Trump, the more he reminds me of FDR. Someone put in office to sell MAJOR changes to the established system under various narratives. Some false, some true. But mostly false. Public perception is all that matters.

[aGameOfThrones]

Judge napolitano agrees with Paul Ryan

[LibertyEagle]

Judge napolitano agrees with Paul Ryan

I wonder if Trump is trying to force the Supreme Court to adjudicate the issue.

[aGameOfThrones]

I wonder if Trump is trying to force the Supreme Court to adjudicate the issue.

Trump is forcing congress to act and if they don’t....

My thing is; if Puerto Ricans needed an act of congress to become citizens after the island was already “under the jurisdiction thereof” and the citizens on the island had to renounce their spanish citizenship in order to be allowed US citizenship, then why do illegal aliens get a free pass?

[Jamesiv1]

Immigration is a big issue for Trump. If nothing else he has made it an issue that people are talking about. We'll see on Nov 6 how America feels about it.

[shakey1]

Interesting! To understand what's going on you have to know the history involved.

The 14th amendment was added during Reconstruction and created the status of "US Citizen", which turned everyone into a "US Citizen", a slave to the government corporations while abolishing private slave ownership under the new 13th Amendment. The original 13th barred lawyers from public office. Eventually, when the UCC was implemented in the 50's, which legislated the process for converting our birth certificates into debt instruments, at roughly the same time the anchor baby policy was enacted. It has been used ever since as an automatic way to create more legal debt slaves for the bankers by creating birth certificates for every anchor baby born here, even to non-US citizens. Anchor baby policy has been one of the biggest ways the bankers have kept the debt issuance game going. The game always needs fresh bodies to securitize! When the Treasury needs to issue more debt, they entice more and more immigrants to come.

Interesting indeed. I remember reading some history on the 13th & 14th amendments. There are some who believe that the 14th was never legally ratified...
http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

related... the 'missing' 13th amendment...
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/13th%20Amendment.pdf

[devil21]

Interesting indeed. I remember reading some history on the 13th & 14th amendments. There are some who believe that the 14th was never legally ratified...
http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm

related... the 'missing' 13th amendment...
https://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/13th%20Amendment.pdf

There is definitely merit and evidence to the idea that since the Civil War, no amendments actually needed ratification, since the Constitution from that point forward ceased being the document that formed the Republic and instead became a set of bylaws of a corporation.

[Swordsmyth]

Judge napolitano agrees with Paul Ryan

Link?
I'd like to add that to my Judge Swamp thread.

[aGameOfThrones]

Link?
I'd like to add that to my Judge Swamp thread.

[Swordsmyth]

Thanks.

I owe you rep.

[phill4paul]

Trump is forcing congress to act and if they don’t....

My thing is; if Puerto Ricans needed an act of congress to become citizens after the island was already “under the jurisdiction thereof” and the citizens on the island had to renounce their spanish citizenship in order to be allowed US citizenship, then why do illegal aliens get a free pass?

That's a good question. Perhaps Puerto Ricans should sue for citizenship. United States vs Puerto Rico.

[Swordsmyth]

That's a good question. Perhaps Puerto Ricans should sue for citizenship. United States vs Puerto Rico.

They have it already but it took legislation to get it.

[Jamesiv1]

Listen to the smart lady in green at 38:07. She makes a good point.



Trump played a Halloween trick on Congress getting them (Paul Ryan et al.) to admit that "Fixing immigration is our job not the President's"

So now USAmericans be like, "Ok pud. So fix it."

[aGameOfThrones]

That's a good question. Perhaps Puerto Ricans should sue for citizenship. United States vs Puerto Rico.

They did sue. I forget the case, but I think it was because someone wanted to go to NY or something like that.

Found it: Gonzales v. Williams

BTW, that case didn't make Puerto Ricans U.S. Citizens, it was only after congress made a statute. We still have American nationals and we give illegal alien babies citizenship

[Anti Federalist]

You know what this was?

An Epic Troll.

The more I understand what he's doing, the more the Drunken Monkey approach makes sense.

$#@!ing hilarious.

[Ender]

There is definitely merit and evidence to the idea that since the Civil War, no amendments actually needed ratification, since the Constitution from that point forward ceased being the document that formed the Republic and instead became a set of bylaws of a corporation.

Yep- and all "citizens" became slaves.

[AuH20]

Amazing how things have changed.........

[spudea]

after the 14th amendment, congress had to pass a law to make Indians and their babies citizens, congress had to pass a law to make Puerto Ricans and their babies citizens. So how in the hell did birthright citizenship even come about holy hell.

[UWDude]

Yep- and all "citizens" became slaves.

Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.
States have rights, to own slaves.
Not in America. Not anymore.
That is what I mean about the silly discussion of law.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.
Wrong. They aren't.
Not in America. Watch.

[Brian4Liberty]

Audio at link...

Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship — and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”
...
“The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship … there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ‘consent’ and ‘sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this,” he continued.

At Levin’s request, Horowitz explained how an executive order issued by Trump ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would not be lawless because the order would be pursuant to law. It is not like Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty, which was an order contrary to law.

“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

Horowitz made the point that our modern concept of birthright citizenship came about not as the result of a court decision, not by an act of Congress, but by the executive branch’s lax enforcement of immigration law. Levin pointed out that if birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic creation, as the chief of the bureaucracy, President Trump has the right to correct years of extra-constitutional behavior by the executive branch.

“He’s not changing the Constitution by executive order. He’s not reinterpreting the Constitution by executive order. He’s getting the executive branch under control and saying, ‘This is what the 14th Amendment means,'” Levin said.
...
More: https://www.conservativereview.com/n...ecutive-order/

[Swordsmyth]

Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.
States have rights, to own slaves.
Not in America. Not anymore.
That is what I mean about the silly discussion of law.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.
Wrong. They aren't.
Not in America. Watch.

There is so much wrong with what you said that it isn't worth derailing the thread to respond.

[osan]

Note to OP: Thread title is FAIL.

Should read: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship for illegals.

[Swordsmyth]

Note to OP: Thread title is FAIL.

Should read: Trump to terminate birthright citizenship for illegals.

I think the mods should fix it.

[UWDude]

As part of the fear mongering CBS 2 in NY at 5pm used a selection of experts to trash Trump on it, including a really ethnic looking and sounding Jewish lawyer. The report followed coverage of the synagogue shooting and probably hoping they could subconsciously connect the two in the viewers minds.

They have been doing that for decades. Segway infectors.

[osan]

Now the neo-confederates start to come out of the woodwork, and we are almost full circle.

Corporations have rights to refuse service to anyone.
Corporations are people too.

Um, no. Corporations are PERSONS. That is actually correct. If you know the etymology of "person", you would know that this is actually proper.

What is a "person"? "Person" derives from "persona" , from the Latin . A "persona" was the MASK worn by theater actors in the days prior to electrical sound amplification/broadcast systems. It consisted of a mask with what amounted to a small megaphone at the mouth for projecting the voice. It came to denote humans, but that is a different sense of the term. The LEGAL sense of "person" WRT corporations is not that they are human beings, but that they are a false face, indicative of their roles as practical legal conveniences such that they are then treated as extant entities for the various purposes that would become very cumbersome were these legal instruments not available to us.

I suppose it is partially understandable that people mistake this arrangement for something that it is not, but at the end of the day there is no excuse for adults to be so ignorant of the truth. This is actually a very important concept and one would think that intelligent and responsible adults of good character would take the time to learn about the truth of it. They don't. Rather, they move forward on their assumptions about what it all means, often using that false understanding as the pretext for all their bitching, moaning, and bellyaching about the Eville™ corporations. It is childish, boring as all hell, even more stupid, and dangerous as well.

I will add that there is no such thing as a bad or Eville™ corporation, but only the people who hide behind the veil of such legal instruments. Therefore, blaming "corporations" becomes trebly dangerous in practical terms because the wrong thing receives the ire of the bile-laden.

The depth of ignorance by the average man of basic and essential items of knowledge is so great as to leave some of us wondering how in hell this nation doesn't collapse in on itself in the manner of a black hole... or at least a neutron star.

[UWDude]

Um, no. Corporations are PERSONS. That is actually correct. If you know the etymology of "person", you would know that this is actually proper.

What is a "person"? "Person" derives from "persona" , from the Latin . A "persona" was the MASK worn by theater actors in the days prior to electrical sound amplification/broadcast systems. It consisted of a mask with what amounted to a small megaphone at the mouth for projecting the voice. It came to denote humans, but that is a different sense of the term. The LEGAL sense of "person" WRT corporations is not that they are human beings, but that they are a false face, indicative of their roles as practical legal conveniences such that they are then treated as extant entities for the various purposes that would become very cumbersome were these legal instruments not available to us.

I suppose it is partially understandable that people mistake this arrangement for something that it is not, but at the end of the day there is no excuse for adults to be so ignorant of the truth. This is actually a very important concept and one would think that intelligent and responsible adults of good character would take the time to learn about the truth of it. They don't. Rather, they move forward on their assumptions about what it all means, often using that false understanding as the pretext for all their bitching, moaning, and bellyaching about the Eville™ corporations. It is childish, boring as all hell, even more stupid, and dangerous as well.

I will add that there is no such thing as a bad or Eville™ corporation, but only the people who hide behind the veil of such legal instruments. Therefore, blaming "corporations" becomes trebly dangerous in practical terms because the wrong thing receives the ire of the bile-laden.

The depth of ignorance by the average man of basic and essential items of knowledge is so great as to leave some of us wondering how in hell this nation doesn't collapse in on itself in the manner of a black hole... or at least a neutron star.

Yeah, the point of my statement is corporations are persons or whatever they think they are, until the law gets changed.
See, people, peoplehood, cannot be wiped out by a law.
But through law alone, corporations could be made to cease to exist, if one so chose.
Although they may seem a real entity, they are only real, until they aren't. Kind of like almost every treaty ever written.

[Mach]

Talk about sell outs.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wow, you must be a debate master!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Wow, you really have no idea how any of this works, do you?

Another awesome argument from RPF's debate master!