Who ever thought birthrights were a good idea?
Would it be unconstitutional for Trump to declare all anchor babies as illegals?
>>75929395
It was a convenient way to give all the niggers citizenship after the civil war.
>>75929395
It would be unconstitutional as the 14th amendment give equal protection to all persons born in the US as citizens. However nothing about giving anchor baby parents citizenship. Just deport their asses and they can either take their kids with them or leave em here in foster care.
>>75929592
Basically this. I assume all the smart politicians were dead by that point, so the lazy bums were there and didn't want to do all the extra work required to give niggers individual citizenship.
>>75929749
How hard, in your opinion, would it be to get the Supreme Court to throw out the 14th amendment?
>>75929395
Nobody did. It's not actually how the law was intended at all.
>>75929395
>unconstitutional
who cares. it's toilet paper. Trump will just get the right guys to interpret it correctly.
>>75929395
That amendment was never intended for this purpose, it is the anchor babies that are unconstitutional.
>>75929395
this image has no right to be 1.2MB
>>75930193
Wow thats really bugging me now actually
>>75929912
LOL
The chances are somewhere between not in a million years and very very slim. Even if Trump gets to nominate a bunch of people to the supreme court.
>>75930078
Good luck with that argument, because It'll end up before the same court that just declared homosexual marriage legal in the whole US.
>>75930078
>X amendment was never intended for Y
>Out founding fathers would have surely made a better amendment had they seen what was going to happen
I bet you think the 2nd amendment is irrelevant because all they had were muskets back then right?
>>75929912
The court would never do that. That's Congress's job anyways. Also corporate entities benefit greatly from the 14th amendment so good luck getting that amended.
>>75929395
Anchor babies are the product of a liberal activist judge and they can be revoked with a different court.
They are also citizens of whoever birthed them's country so we could send them all back if there was the will.
I doubt that there ever will be the will, though. 60% white is a lie, we're more like 55% and about 30% of those are leftists so we're pretty fucked, senpai.
>>75929395
>Would it be unconstitutional for Trump to declare all anchor babies as illegals?
A) President's don't have anything close to the authority to pass laws.
B) Yes.
>>75929912
The Supreme Court cannot throw out a constitutional amendment. That is not how the government works. It would take a new amendment to repeal the 14th, which would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states.
>>75930078
There is room for interpretation. Not for disregard. It is clearly, explicitly, the case that anyone born in the USA is an American citizen.
There is zero room for interpretation.
>>75931458
Incorrect. The court CAN'T do that. The Supreme Court cannot overrule the constitution. That requires an act first of congress, then of the states.
>>75929395
It's fucking disgusting how easy it is to violate the law's spirit and get free citizenship, and I'm speaking as a fucking mexican.
>Get your girl knocked up
>Watch her health, medical check ups,, ultrasound, everything
>8 months pregnant
>sneak across the border
>Wait it out
>water broke, rush to US emergency room
>congrats, it's a US Citizenship! Two of 'em!
>You are now both US citizens
>>75931702
>The Supreme Court cannot overrule the constitution
Yeah but they can fuck with how the amendment is interpreted/applied. Just look at what they have done to the 10th amendment.
>>75931878
Yeah the supreme court can pretty much interpret the constitution however the fuck they want, if they can pull something out of their ass then write an opinion on it then bam
>>75931846
Only the children. The parents will usually get residency permits to care for the children, but that's about it.
But yeah, there's a reason most of the world uses blood right.
>>75931878
They can because there is room for interpretation, in some areas.
>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
A) There is no room for interpretation
B) The Supreme Court are not law makers. Someone else would have to pass a law that people born in the USA aren't Americans, then the case would have to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Which, quite simply, is barely-even "theoretically" possible. But if it happened, there isn't any realistic possibility, at all, that such a law would be upheld.
>>75929395
>Would it be unconstitutional for Trump to declare all anchor babies as illegals?
Yep
>>75929912
Literally impossible.
>>75931846
>>75931995
This is a misconception.
There are no such things as anchor baby visas. It actually does not help an immigration case, at all, to have an "anchor baby." In fact, if the person had their baby in the USA and didn't have a valid visa? It'll actually make it harder for them to immigrate. Their child cannot petition for their visa until the child is 21.
Anchor babies are actually a myth. A popular one, but it doesn't have any factual basis. It makes it harder for someone to get residency--not easier.
>>75932709
So if a mexican has a baby in America, their child is not American? What?
>>75932329
You don't know what you're talking about. The Supreme Court is very much a lawmaking institution - look up judicial activism and common law. All the Supreme Court would need is a case appealing that anchor babies are not citizens, which would likely not be that hard given that they receive thousands of appeals a year. The Supreme Court can very easily change their interpretation of the Constitution, just look at Gideon v. Wainwright. Gideon, in fact, was not entitled to legal representation because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Even though the wording of the constitution lead the SCOTUS to one decision, they were free to "interpret" the Bill of Rights and essentially make policy.
>>75932885
Their child is American. The parents cannot stay. If they were in the USA illegally? They cannot even apply to come back for 10 years. The child cannot attempt to sponsor them until the child is 21. The parents will have a harder, longer immigration process for having had the child in the USA.
The child is American, sure. The parents? Doesn't help them in any way. The "anchor" part of the "anchor baby" myth is pretending that it makes it easier for someone to "anchor" themself to the USA by having one.
It makes it harder.
