We don't need to end birthright citizenship. We need to clarify birthright citizenship. I you are not here 100% legally, it should not apply.

Gee...I wonder why we didn't hear anything about your inalienable support of the U.S. Constitution during any of the several times that Obama trampled the U.S. Constitution??????

There's one thing I would retain.

Emmerich de Vattel defined one class of citizen whose loyalties are without question. He called them natural-born citizens. And contrary to everyone's assumption, a natural-born citizen is not only born in-country (or on a diplomatic or military station) but also has two citizen parents. That is, the parents must each be citizens at the time.

Under the Constitution, only such a person is eligible to the office of President.

Thomas Jefferson had a temporary exception made: "a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." Every other person contemporary with him, who became President, was recognized as a natural born citizen. If you were a colonial to begin with, you became a citizen when the colonies became "free and independent States."

Chester A. Arthur skated on the NBC requirement. He hid his mother's Irish extraction from the Republican National Convention in 1880. That's the only reason he got elected Vice-President and took over as President after the assassination of James A. Garfield.

And Barack Obama skated on that, too. His father was a British colonial subject. And his birth certificate from Hawaii is an obvious, and amateurish, forgery. I studied the PDF myself.

John McCain was still a natural born citizen, because his parents were "on station" at the time of his birth.

We almost nominated non-NBCs in 2016. Marco Rubio's parents didn't get naturalized until Marco was five years old. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, and his father, a Cuban national, didn't get naturalized until Ted was an adult--if ever. Donald J. Trump is a natural-born citizen. His mother had been duly nationalized before he was born.

John Jay (first CJOTUS) considered the NBC requirement central. He made sure Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations (1780) was available to all his fellow Framers.

I sincerely applaud efforts to fix our broken immigration system. I haven't seen the bill, but here are the things I would put in it:

1) an explicit end to granting citizen based on place of birth rather than nationality of parents.
2) an explicit end to guest citizenship where a person can bring in and patriate members of their family. Citizenship must be evaluated on an individual basis.
3) a denial of all federal funds and services to persons in the country illegally, whether that be from overstayed visas or whatever else.
4) a denial of all federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" - those who make it a policy to harbor illegal immigrants, including interfering with legitimate legal functions such as raids, etc.
5) en explicit end to all asylum programs. See sponsorship below.
6) a repeal of any policy which prohibits the separation of illegal children from their parents. Each individual crossing is to be treated on their own merits - not their familial connections. Children of parents attempting illegal entry will be sent directly to the nearly consulate or embassy of the appropriate nation.

Additional items I think would help:
1) a sponsorship program. If you want to claim asylum, you must have a sponsor who is a US citizen or group of US citizens in good standing (meaning that they have never been convicted of a felony) to sponsor the applicant. Sponsorship means total responsibility for that individual's actions for a period of 10 years. Sponsors are responsible for paying for medical needs via insurance, housing, etc. and finding the person gainful employ. The individual would still be assayed by immigration officials according to current policy as to their fitness to enter the country.
If the applicant commits a felony in that ten years, the sponsor is responsible for the penalties and fines and the asylum seeker is immediately deported with no chance of re-entry into the country ever. The sponsor is also prohibited from sponsoring any new applicants permanently. A sponsor may only sponsor a single applicant at a time.
2) Build the wall. There is nothing like a physical barrier.
3) Repeat offender laws. If you are caught in the United States illegally after having already been deported, you are put in a labor camp to work there for ten years, after which you are again deported and barred permanently from re-entry. If you commit a violent felony and are deported and then are caught again in the United States, you are summarily executed without possibility of probation or appeal. If you commit any other felony, are deported, and then caught in the US illegally again, you are sent to the labor camp for ten years and then deported and barred from re-entry.

The voters in his district ought to do that for him.

The two faced Paul Ryan seems to have a problem with it. He should focus on his early retirement and shut the .... up.

Among them: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He had an epiphany earlier this month that the Democrats wish they hadn't given him.

The discussion is just what we need. The question is: where does the law and Constitution now stand? And I can't think of a better time to bring this before the Court--a Court containing Messrs. JJ Roberts (CJ), Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch--and Kavanaugh.

I don't disagree at all that "anchor baby syndrome" is unConstitutional as per the explicit text of the 14th Amendment. Illegals entering the US are subject to their home nation's jurisdiction and thus are not eligible for protection under the 14th Amendment. (The problem with this is a Supreme Court precedent set by Justice Brennan which violates this and was noticeably missing from the article.) That does not change the fact, however, that the Legislative and not the Executive Branch has responsibility for immigration and naturalization law as per the Constitution.

Just as Obama was violating the Constitution to impose DACA on the United States via Executive Order, it would be just as unConstitutional for President Trump to unilaterally declare immigration policy - even if that policy is well-intended. The better policy is for the Legislative Branch to do its job and pass immigration reform (and I believe that several Republicans have offered legislative answers).

that's already established case law...I can't recall the name offhand but if true there is no need for the executive overreach except to kickoff the discussion.

That would conform with the full intent of Donald Trump's executive order--and Senator Lindsey Graham's proposed legislation.

Yes, and I respectfully suggest to you that the judge has found, and "ruled," in error.

I read an interpretation where the domicile of the parents would be the determining factor. In other words, if the parent are not legal residents then their offspring cannot be legal citizens.

of interest

https://video.foxnews.com/v/585600424...

The Constitution states to assign citizenship to "resident aliens'" children if born in the USA.

It is not saying "Illegal aliens".

Big difference.

Except for one thing: if you read my article (at the link in the title), you'll see my case for declaring that the "anchor baby syndrome" itself is unconstitutional. I distinguish the two cases. I say that Trump is right and Obama was wrong.

I want to see him do it. And then I want the Democrats to appeal to the Supreme Court and win. Here's why.

Article I of the Constitution discusses the enumerated powers of Congress, among which are the express control of immigration and naturalization. ANY executive branch position which attempts to usurp or override this needs to be smacked down hard and I think this alone was grounds for impeachment of President Obama.

Here's why: if the Supreme Court limits the powers of the Presidency and Executive Actions by declaring Trump's well-meaning but unConstitutional action void, it also by the same ruling nullifies DACA and implicates the Democratic Party's open-borders policies as being anti-American. It also puts the onus back on Congress to make the necessary changes to our immigration laws and policies via the proper/Constitutional channels. To me, it's a lose-win-win scenario.

I'm not asking you to, because Trump does not propose to violate the Constitution.

When I said cite the case on point, I mean there is no case on point. Donald Trump has no way of knowing whether his act is constitutional or not, until he tries it. The only time you'd have an argument would be if Trump actually flew in the face of a case on point.

In any event, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is working on an act of Congress that would back Trump up completely.

I never said the present interpretation is correct. I am against birthright citizenship. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are part of the post civil war Reconstruction era where southern democrats attempted to keep freed slaves from participating in American society as full citizens. It was never intended to, and there has even been case law showing, that it does not apply to illegal aliens.

Even so, a law, any law, requires Congress to alter, append or repeal. There is a process in place and it was put in place for reason (checks and balances)

I will never support the violation of the Constitution or a POTUS's attempt to violate his oath of office. Again, I do think this was to get people talking and congress acting.

I'd go along with what you said above--if you can cite the case that says birthright citizenship is an automatic right that applies even to those born on American soil to persons lacking an immigration visa. That's all. Cite just one case on point.

Sometimes when you just don't know what's Constitutional or not, because courts haven't decided, you just do it and let someone sue you. Then and only then will the courts even have something to decide.

This is one of those times.

Applauding the violation of the Constitution by a sitting president is something I'm not apt to do. The Amendments are law and laws in this country require an act of congress to alter, append or repeal. If Trump wants to be impeached he'll continue along this line because he is blatantly violating the separation of powers and acting beyond his authority as POTUS.

I do not see Trump as a conservative but certainly do not see him a fool. I suspect this is his way of getting Congress to talk about the issue and to force them to get off their asses on this subject.