independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 17th Nov 2018 3:33pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The 14th Amendment and President Trump Executive Order
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/30/18 3:56am

benni

The 14th Amendment and President Trump Executive Order

President Trump believes that he can end the 14th Amendment by way of Executive Order:


https://www.axios.com/tru...gn=organic


In particular, Trump is targeting the 1st Clause of the 14th Amendment. The 1st Clause 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." He wants to do away with a person born here to illegal immigrants, but it would have rammifications for anyone born here if the government decided they were no longer citizens.

However, the 14th Amendment also brought about the following:


The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.

The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. The Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted in such a way that it does very little.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/30/18 4:00am

benni

Section 1. 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. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/30/18 4:04am

benni

The Citizenship Clause overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship.[38][39] Some members of Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,[40] or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act.[41] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule.

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[42][43] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.[44]

Historian Eric Foner, who has explored the question of U.S. birthright citizenship to other countries, argues that:

Many things claimed as uniquely American—a devotion to individual freedom, for example, or social opportunity—exist in other countries. But birthright citizenship does make the United States (along with Canada) unique in the developed world. [...] Birthright citizenship is one expression of the commitment to equality and the expansion of national consciousness that marked Reconstruction. [...] Birthright citizenship is one legacy of the titanic struggle of the Reconstruction era to create a genuine democracy grounded in the principle of equality.[45]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/30/18 4:12am

benni

Loss of citizenship

Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:

  • Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically, this is not a loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never wasa citizen of the United States.[66]
  • Affiliation with "anti-American" organizations (e.g., the Communist party, terrorist organizations, etc.) within 5 years of naturalization. The State department views such affiliations as sufficient evidence that an applicant must have lied or concealed evidence in the naturalization process.[66]
  • Other-than-honorable discharge from the U.S. armed forces before 5 years of honorable service, if honorable service was the basis for the naturalization.[66]
  • Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship.[67]

For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship.[68] This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the Bancroft Treaties). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in Afroyim v. Rusk(1967),[69] as well as Vance v. Terrazas (1980),[70] holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship. However, Congress can revoke citizenship that it had previously granted to a person not born in the United States.[71]



This should concern all Americans. If Trump believes he can do away with a citizens birthright - and since he has decreed that Democrats are "anti-Americans" ...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/30/18 4:25am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

I do not agree with his thinking. For one simple reason: the person who is here illegally is subject to the laws of the state in which they are in and we know this because they got caught speeding they would be subject to fine or even arrest. If a baby was killed whos parents were here illegally the law would take action against the killer.

There is a valid question to ask. That is why does it talk about being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Now we all know that not everyone on us soil is subject to our laws so I would assume their children would not be born citizens...

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/30/18 6:36am

2elijah

avatar

For goodness sakes trump is doing this because of the fear of the browning of America. I’ve said that so many times why trump has been using the immigration issue as a cover for his insecurities of the country turning majority Brown. That is why he hates Latinos and trying to do everything he can, to keep them and other Brown and Black immigrants from coming here.
FEARLESS
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/30/18 6:37am

RodeoSchro

avatar

Donald Trump is a racist. He's already said it would be OK if immigrants were from Norway.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/30/18 6:41am

2elijah

avatar

He’s trying to stop the voting rights of many Black and Brown Americans. His ingrained hatred is destroying this country.
[Edited 10/30/18 8:14am]
FEARLESS
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/30/18 6:46am

BombSquad

avatar

in other words, he hates the Constitution, he hates the Forefathers, he hates American values.

he's a good guy. I like him more and more each day. more power to him LOL

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/30/18 6:46am

RodeoSchro

avatar

2elijah said:

He’s trying to stop the voting rights of many Black and Brown Americans.



Agreed, but I think this particular move is to stir up the base and get them to vote.

Karl Rove identified immigration as the #1 hot-button issue among the base. He and Bush screwed it up in 2005 or so, but they've gotten a lot better at spreading fear through immigration in order to get their base to vote.

Early voting here in Houston is blasting records - but there have been more Republicans early vote than Democrats. So the GOP strategy is working.

However, based on voter turn-out in previous mid-term elections, the GOP is going to run out of voters. That's right - it's projected that there will be as many GOP early-voters in Harris county and many other Texas counties this year as there were TOTAL Republican voters in those counties in 2014.

So either the GOP is going to be completely voted by Friday, or there are a lot more GOP voters than there were four years ago.

Let's hope it's the former.

But no matter what - VOTE. Get your friends to vote.

You plus Two equals Blue!

.

[Edited 10/30/18 6:48am]

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/30/18 7:01am

PennyPurple

avatar

What happens if 1 parent is a natural citizen and the other parent isn't and they aren't married?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/30/18 7:59am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Trump is a racist asshole.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/30/18 8:03am

13cjk13

DiminutiveRocker said:

Trump is a racist asshole.

That doesn't even have a clue about what any of this means. Such a nasty man.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/30/18 8:20am

2elijah

avatar

RodeoSchro said:



2elijah said:


He’s trying to stop the voting rights of many Black and Brown Americans.



Agreed, but I think this particular move is to stir up the base and get them to vote.

Karl Rove identified immigration as the #1 hot-button issue among the base. He and Bush screwed it up in 2005 or so, but they've gotten a lot better at spreading fear through immigration in order to get their base to vote.

Early voting here in Houston is blasting records - but there have been more Republicans early vote than Democrats. So the GOP strategy is working.

However, based on voter turn-out in previous mid-term elections, the GOP is going to run out of voters. That's right - it's projected that there will be as many GOP early-voters in Harris county and many other Texas counties this year as there were TOTAL Republican voters in those counties in 2014.

So either the GOP is going to be completely voted by Friday, or there are a lot more GOP voters than there were four years ago.

Let's hope it's the former.

But no matter what - VOTE. Get your friends to vote.

You plus Two equals Blue!

.


[Edited 10/30/18 6:48am]


I will be voting and so will the rest of my family. It’s interesting how he brings up that executive order one week before Election day. Even when he admitted on national tv, that he is a nationalist, that was a msg to the Dzvid Duke segment of his support base, that he still has their interests. It’s very sad that this is the type of president America has s right now.
FEARLESS
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/30/18 8:33am

2elijah

avatar

PennyPurple said:

What happens if 1 parent is a natural citizen and the other parent isn't and they aren't married?


Exactly. That executive order if it happens, will cause turmoil in this country, and will also be a threat to many Americans, who travel outside of this country, because I believe it will make many outsiders hate Americans, because of trump’s continued favoritism of Whites over non-Whites everywhere. He’s such s hateful person.
FEARLESS
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/30/18 9:15am

jaawwnn

avatar

One of the most shameful things passed here in Ireland in my lifetime was the very similar 27th amendment, if you are interested in how the debates over this will likely pan out.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/30/18 9:25am

Camileyun

It'll go to the Supreme Court. When the Civil Rights Act was drafted in 1866, unauthorized immigration was not a problem in this country. The Fourteenth Amendment was (among other things) to ensure that the rights of it's citizens, in particular freed slaves and their offspring, could never be overturned. It does not specifically address the offspring of people entering the country illegally. This should not be the subject of an Executive Order, IMO. It will be contested (9th Circuit?) and would ultimately go before the SC.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/30/18 9:27am

BombSquad

avatar

"How ridiculous, we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end."


yes. the only country... except for most other countries in North and South America. and a bunch of others around the globe


FULL BOWN IDIOT

he's such a pathetic lying scumbag and fake news slingshot, biggest ignorant uninformed uneducated piece of shit, unreal



[Edited 10/30/18 9:30am]

2013 Obama & Castro - "and barack has once again bowed down to a despot"
2018 Trump & Kim - "and it is happening now! after nearly 65 years and 11 presidents"
biggest fucking hypocrite around LOL only in da forum...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/30/18 12:06pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

BombSquad said:

"How ridiculous, we're the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous and it has to end."


yes. the only country... except for most other countries in North and South America. and a bunch of others around the globe


FULL BOWN IDIOT

he's such a pathetic lying scumbag and fake news slingshot, biggest ignorant uninformed uneducated piece of shit, unreal



[Edited 10/30/18 9:30am]

He is a racist asshole and his base loves it.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 10/30/18 1:00pm

namepeace

The Evel Knievel Presidency -- stunt after stunt after stunt.


Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 10/30/18 2:31pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

namepeace said:

The Evel Knievel Presidency -- stunt after stunt after stunt.


When will everyone see he is jumping the shark! lol

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 10/30/18 2:44pm

2elijah

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:



namepeace said:


The Evel Knievel Presidency -- stunt after stunt after stunt.





When will everyone see he is jumping the shark! lol


He is trying to please his David Duke supporters so that when he is no longer president, he will have that following and will continue to spew hatred with a possible radio or tv show, as a home base for those type supporters. He loves media attention although he pretends he doesn’t from the stations he detests, and will do anything to keep his name in the media.

He will continue to attack the Democrats, and instill fear of America turning Brown. He will also encourage his support base to form their own political party. He will be the new leader of a new KKK group, stirring up trouble in America without presidential power.
[Edited 10/30/18 14:46pm]
FEARLESS
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 10/30/18 2:46pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

2elijah said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

When will everyone see he is jumping the shark! lol

He is trying to please his David Duke supporters so that when he is no longer president, he will have that following and will continue to spew hatred with a possible radio or tv show, as a home base for those type supporters. He will continue to attack the Democrats, and instill fear of America turning Brown. He will also encourage his support base to form their own political party. He will be the new leader of a new KKK group, stirring up trouble in America without presidential power.



nod I predict when he is no longer in office his rhetoric will be even more blatant and racist.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 10/30/18 2:49pm

13cjk13

DiminutiveRocker said:

2elijah said:

DiminutiveRocker said: He is trying to please his David Duke supporters so that when he is no longer president, he will have that following and will continue to spew hatred with a possible radio or tv show, as a home base for those type supporters. He will continue to attack the Democrats, and instill fear of America turning Brown. He will also encourage his support base to form their own political party. He will be the new leader of a new KKK group, stirring up trouble in America without presidential power.



nod I predict when he is no longer in office his rhetoric will be even more blatant and racist.

With any luck, he'll be sitting in a corner with a big orange wig on peeing on himself and talking about his electoral college numbers. lol

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 10/30/18 2:58pm

benni

My concern is what Trump might do with legal citizens who parents were legal citizens. IF Trump is allowed to do this, he may start thinking that he can take away citizenship from anyone that he doesn't like, or that he deems as being "anti-American". Anyone that speaks out against him -- gone. Wrong color and you speak out against him -- gone. CNN anchors -- gone.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 10/30/18 3:32pm

Camileyun

benni said:

My concern is what Trump might do with legal citizens who parents were legal citizens. IF Trump is allowed to do this, he may start thinking that he can take away citizenship from anyone that he doesn't like, or that he deems as being "anti-American". Anyone that speaks out against him -- gone. Wrong color and you speak out against him -- gone. CNN anchors -- gone.

Interesting you should say that, because that is why the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified...The Democrats were so against the Civil Rights Act and giving African Americans full citizenship, that the Republicans made sure it could never be reversed by insisting it be included in the Constitution, even though it was redundant. What you say cannot happen...checks and balances are there to prevent a Pres. from having that kind of power.

[Edited 10/30/18 15:34pm]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 10/30/18 3:33pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

Even Paul Ryan says President Trump can't do this.

But the scary thing is that there are actual lawyers who work for the White House - OUR White House - who think he CAN do it.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 10/30/18 3:45pm

IanRG

Camileyun said:

benni said:

My concern is what Trump might do with legal citizens who parents were legal citizens. IF Trump is allowed to do this, he may start thinking that he can take away citizenship from anyone that he doesn't like, or that he deems as being "anti-American". Anyone that speaks out against him -- gone. Wrong color and you speak out against him -- gone. CNN anchors -- gone.

Interesting you should say that, because that is why the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified...The Democrats were so against the Civil Rights Act and giving African Americans full citizenship, that the Republicans made sure it could never be reversed by insisting it be included in the Constitution, even though it was redundant. What you say cannot happen...checks and balances are there to prevent a Pres. from having that kind of power.

[Edited 10/30/18 15:34pm]

.

Seeking to excuse a current attempted abuse of power by your side on the basis of criticising previous attempted abuses of power by the other otherside is no defence at all.

.

And I say this as a person not from either side because I am not from your country, so I recognise its abuses by both sides.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 10/30/18 5:00pm

benni

Camileyun said:

benni said:

My concern is what Trump might do with legal citizens who parents were legal citizens. IF Trump is allowed to do this, he may start thinking that he can take away citizenship from anyone that he doesn't like, or that he deems as being "anti-American". Anyone that speaks out against him -- gone. Wrong color and you speak out against him -- gone. CNN anchors -- gone.

Interesting you should say that, because that is why the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified...The Democrats were so against the Civil Rights Act and giving African Americans full citizenship, that the Republicans made sure it could never be reversed by insisting it be included in the Constitution, even though it was redundant. What you say cannot happen...checks and balances are there to prevent a Pres. from having that kind of power.

[Edited 10/30/18 15:34pm]


Except that the Checks and Balances have not been working since Trump took office. All those that spoke out so loudly against Trump the candidate, suddenly seem to be in his pocket and ignore almost everything he does. There is hardly any Republican that has spoken out against any actions Trump has taken, and in fact, seem to overlook his actions the majority of the time.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 10/30/18 5:06pm

djThunderfunk

avatar

benni said:

My concern is what Trump might do with legal citizens who parents were legal citizens. IF Trump is allowed to do this, he may start thinking that he can take away citizenship from anyone that he doesn't like, or that he deems as being "anti-American". Anyone that speaks out against him -- gone. Wrong color and you speak out against him -- gone. CNN anchors -- gone.


You're really concerned that clown could do such a thing? Really?!? He can't. He won't.

We were HERE, where were you?

4 those that knew the number and didn't call... fk all y'all!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The 14th Amendment and President Trump Executive Order