Birthright citizenship

[JohnR]

I think it is a stunt. Paul Ryan said that Trump, like Obama, cannot change the Constitution with Executive Orders and the text in the 14th Amendment was pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So if birthright citizenship is invalid does that mean Don the Cons kids with Ivana (non citizen when she gave birth) have to go back to some Eastern European country?
Whoops

No, and you know it

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know the details, but I would think that Don the Cons kids would be citizens because Don the Con is a citizen, and his wife would also be given citizenship by marrying Don the Con. Are his kids claiming birthright citizenship?

^^^

Hey Scott. Do you have links that are not hour long chalkboard scrapes than Stefan?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Hey Scott. Do you have links that are not hour long chalkboard scrapes than Stefan?

Pete could probably cut and paste something but I doubt that it would be short and sweet

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I think it is a stunt. Paul Ryan said that Trump, like Obama, cannot change the Constitution with Executive Orders and the text in the 14th Amendment was pretty clear

Paul Ryan is wrong about a lot of things. In this instance, it's not about changing the Constitution if Trump is right. And the text in the Constitution is very clear (especially when you read what the originators of the 14th Amendment SPECIFICALLY WROTE WHAT THEY MEANT by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Watch the video which has a detailed presentation of what those who wrote the Amendment said what those words meant. And consider this, every word in the Constitution, and in the Amendments to it, is important and necessary. Unnecessary words and phrases and repetition of those words, are not inserted, especially because they can lead to erroneous interpretation. If the creators of the Amendment meant to grant citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, they could have simply stated that. It would not have been necessary to add caveats such as "subject to the jurisdiction" and then repeat it. Those words absolutely qualify what the Amendment means and the writers, as shown in the video, specifically commented on exactly what they meant.

Hey Scott. Do you have links that are not hour long chalkboard scrapes than Stefan?

There's a lot of detail necessary to sufficiently explain the issue. Brief synopses, such as PeteF presents (lengthy as they are) don't give enough information for a novice on the issue to be able to convincingly understand it. Stefan, as annoying as he often is, usually does go into the details needed to present a clear picture to us layfolks.