Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

User avatar
bob
Posts: 30391
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#101

Post by bob »

AndyinPA wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:22 pm Uh, aren't a couple of his kids anchor babies?
Ivanka, Eric, and DJTJ's mother was not a U.S. citizen when she gave birth to them.

Barron was born in 2006; the same year his mother naturalized. I do not know which occurred first.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11635
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#102

Post by Chilidog »

This issue hinges on the meaning of the term "Jurisdiction."

Core tl me if I am wrong, but there is only one definition / interpretation of that term, correct?


The birthers seem to be aiming for creating a separate legal meaning to this term.


User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 29085
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#103

Post by RTH10260 »

bob wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:05 pm
AndyinPA wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:22 pm Uh, aren't a couple of his kids anchor babies?
Ivanka, Eric, and DJTJ's mother was not a U.S. citizen when she gave birth to them.

Barron was born in 2006; the same year his mother naturalized. I do not know which occurred first.
But the TrumpKids are not real anchor babies, their papa is assumed to be an American CItizen, but he has never presented his Long Form BC with neat little footies ;)


User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3995
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#104

Post by Dan1100 »

bob wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:46 pm
DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:41 pm Does what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended matter?
In a court of law?; no. When arguing on the internet?; sure.
Although it is kind of important to look at the context. What evil was birthright citizenship meant to prevent?

The civil war was over and the slaves were freed. Irish and German immigrants already made up a majority of the population in several northern cities. Making every person born in the U.S. a citizen was meant to prevent any group (freed slaves, Irish, Germans etc) from becoming a multi-generational underclass with no political rights.

The Republican want exactly that. They don't really want illegals to leave. Someone has to pick the lettuce. But they don't want them to vote and most importantly they don't want their children and grandchildren to vote. They want them to become one step above chattel slaves, a multi-generational underclass without the safety, security and political rights of citizens.


Mr Brolin
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:03 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#105

Post by Mr Brolin »

Chilidog wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:15 pm This issue hinges on the meaning of the term "Jurisdiction."

Core tl me if I am wrong, but there is only one definition / interpretation of that term, correct?


The birthers seem to be aiming for creating a separate legal meaning to this term.

If you can hold your nose long enough to wander the fetid swamp of FreeRethuglic you will see the cretins can't seem to grasp the difference between "jurisdiction" and "allegiance".

Of course, the idiots also have keep saying that there is no "law" about NBC status or that there is only one 'flawed' finding called WKA or there is more sqealing about how immigration was different when the 14the was passed etc etc

But not to worry, the magical EO by The Great Grifting Sandworm wil make all the scary dusky hued folks go away.......


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30391
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#106

Post by bob »

RTH10260 wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:34 pm But the TrumpKids are not real anchor babies, their papa is assumed to be an American CItizen, but he has never presented his Long Form BC with neat little footies ;)
Yes, but:

1. Nothing in the president's :yankyank: about birthright citizenship covered whether one citizen parent is sufficient; happy to demand from birthers and nativists their legal support for their argument that one is; more importantly,
2. The concept that the president's :yankyank: will lead to white people being asked for their papers may actually give some pause.

Chilidog wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:15 pmThe birthers seem to be aiming for creating a separate legal meaning to this term.
Creating whole-cloth new meanings is by definition what birthers do.

Birthers (and their ilk) are leaning into the concept that, if you are subject to another country's jurisdiction (because you are citizen of that country), you can't also be subject to the United States' jurisdiction. In other words, they're refighting the already-lost battle about dual citizenship.

Again, this isn't about consistent reasoning; it is about results.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4110
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#107

Post by DaveMuckey »

My memory is not that great, so I ask, what was the name of the European philosopher who got into the discussion during the "Birther Wars".


Mr Brolin
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:03 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#108

Post by Mr Brolin »

Emer De Vattel, sometimes Emmerich De Vattel


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30391
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#109

Post by bob »

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:41 pm Does what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended matter?
Mike D. made a helpful Twitter thread to explain what Howard actually meant (TL;DR: Howard understood that the 14th Amendment would include everyone born in the U.S., regardless of the parents' citizenship):

The John T. Reeds of the (Twitter)world, however, will just :notlistening: ; do not expect this to change the opinion of anyone already circulating quotemined "proof."


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 4117
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#110

Post by Turtle »



User avatar
Azastan
Posts: 4575
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:42 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#111

Post by Azastan »

bob wrote: Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:50 pm

Yes, but:

1. Nothing in the president's :yankyank: about birthright citizenship covered whether one citizen parent is sufficient; happy to demand from birthers and nativists their legal support for their argument that one is; more importantly,
It amuses me no end that my brother, a Trump fanboy, would no longer be considered a citizen by birthright if Trump could make this true.

Neither my father nor my mother were naturalized citizens when my brother was born.

As for Trump's children--just because dad was a US citizen does not confer automatic citizenship on them. If Ivana had been a single mother, they would not necessarily have gotten citizenship because of Trump, especially if Ivana had brought them up in a foreign country, or if she had never been naturalized.

Further, the laws concerning naturalization of children can change, so ya never know! These are the current requirements for children to become naturalized through their parent/s:


At least one of the child’s parents is a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization;
The child is a permanent resident under 18 years of age;
The child is residing in or has resided in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent.


Addie
Posts: 44547
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#112

Post by Addie »

This was something I was confused about, because I never saw Harry Reid as anti-immigrant ever.

Politico
Harry Reid fires back at Trump over birthright citizenship stance

Harry Reid on Wednesday said Donald Trump is "profoundly wrong" after the president quoted his 1993 position on revoking birthright citizenship in perhaps his harshest criticism of the president since leaving office.

The retired Nevada Democratic senator said in a statement that "around the time Donald Trump was gobbling up tax-free inheritance money from his wealthy father and driving several companies into bankruptcy, I made a mistake" by proposing a bill to remove birthright citizenship from immigrants who entered the country illegally. In a speech on the Senate floor 25 years ago, Reid said "no sane country" would offer a "reward for being an illegal immigrant."

Referring to that speech, Trump said Reid was correct "before he and the Democrats went insane and started with the Open Borders (which brings massive Crime) 'stuff.'" And after fighting with Trump all through his election campaign, Reid fired back on Wednesday that Trump "can tweet whatever he wants while he sits around watching TV, but he is profoundly wrong.”

"After I proposed that awful bill, my wife Landra immediately sat me down and said, ‘Harry, what are you doing, don’t you know that my father is an immigrant?’ She set me straight. And in my 36 years in Washington, there is no more valuable lesson I learned than the strength and power of immigrants and no issue I worked harder on than fixing our broken immigration system," said Reid, a former Senate majority and minority leader. "Immigrants are the lifeblood of our nation. They are our power and our strength. This president wants to destroy not build, to stoke hatred instead of unify."


User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10582
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#113

Post by Mikedunford »

Could use a favor, on the off chance that anyone has time/inclination to play on Twitter tonight -

My main thread on the birthright citizenship thing just got featured by Twitter Moments, and I'm starting to get MAGAts in my mentions. I'm also going to be going to sleep in the next hour or two because I'm out in the UK, so I'm not going to be able to respond to (or airlock) them. If anyone wants to play, it's the thread below:



"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.
User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11635
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#114

Post by Chilidog »

FYI, Mike.

I found this link to a pdf of the 8 pages of the depate.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenshi ... e_2890.pdf


User avatar
bob
Posts: 30391
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#115

Post by bob »

Daily Beast: Judge Napolitano Teaches Basic Civics to Desperate ‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts:
‘Look, the president can’t change the plain meaning of the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,’ the longtime Fox News senior judicial analyst said.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’ longtime senior judicial analyst, appeared on Fox & Friends early Thursday to teach the hosts a basic civics lesson in light of President Trump’s announcement this week that he plans to end birthright citizenship through an executive order.

Though hosts Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy appeared eager to find a method to carry out Trump’s proposed policy, Napolitano dashed their hopes with a sit-down worthy of a 7th-grade classroom.
I would compare this to Mike D. on Twitter, but I don't want to insult Mike by comparing him to Napolitano.


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2
User avatar
Fortinbras
Posts: 2950
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:08 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#116

Post by Fortinbras »

There is a definite limit to what a President can do by Executive Order. Contravening the clear words of the Constitution are outside that limit.

There is even a limit to what Congress could do to frustrate the clear intent of a Constitutional provision, and I think that what Trump wants is beyond that limit as well.

However, the mere attempt by Trump to accomplish that result by Exec Order would be a legal nullity but would probably qualify as an impeachable offense.


User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#117

Post by noblepa »

I think that Trump, like many of his fellow birthers before him, is hanging his hat on the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in the 14th.

Their argument usually involves some convoluted reading of the phrase that confuses "jurisdiction" with "allegiance", and that somehow, being a citizen of a foreign country means you owe your allegiance to that country, not the US. Or, that somehow, illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction.

First of all, no dictionary I know of lists allegiance and jurisdiction as synonyms.

If illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that means that they can't be prosecuted for crimes, even the crime of entering the country illegally. According to this twisted logic, only US citizens could be prosecuted for entering the country illegally.

A foreign diplomat can not be prosecuted for committing a crime, unless his/her home country waives diplomatic immunity. The most that can be done is that they can be declared "persona non grata" and ordered to leave the country. That is the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Diplomats are not and are explicitly excluded from birthright citizenship by the plain language of the 14th.

An illegal immigrant, on the other hand, CAN be prosecuted for crimes committed here. They ARE subject to our laws.

The argument that two citizen (or even one citizen) parents are required for birthright citizenship, also fails. There is little argument that the 14th was passed, in large part, to insure citizenship to newly freed slaves. Before the 14th, slaves, or even free black persons were not citizens. If the two parent requirement were part of the 14th, then it would have been wholly ineffective at its purpose. No black child born to newly freed slaves could be a citizen, because his/her parents were not considered citizens.


User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3994
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#118

Post by MN-Skeptic »

Ann Coulter created her own article on birthright citizenship which was re-printed over at Breitbart where they thought she was so brilliant. To her, it was all about giving former slaves citizenship. A little of what she say:
The amendment didn't even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It's easy to miss -- the law is titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.") Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.

President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.
You can read her whole article at THE TRUE HISTORY OF MILLSTONE BABIES.


Joe Biden: "Wearing masks is not a political statement. It's a scientific imperative."

It’s the pandemic, stupid!
User avatar
BrianH
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:00 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#119

Post by BrianH »

noblepa wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:32 pmIf illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, that means that they can't be prosecuted for crimes, even the crime of entering the country illegally. According to this twisted logic, only US citizens could be prosecuted for entering the country illegally.
Very true. The anti-birth-citizenship types try to get around the jurisdiction issue a few ways. 1) They quote-mine from sections of the 14A legislative history where the unique problem of Native Americans is being discussed, find fragments that speak of the necessity of "complete jurisdiction," and then attempt to import those into the case of aliens (where the legistators pretty much without blinking accepted that children of white alien immigrants (e.g., Germans) born here were citizens, and that (with some with reluctance or even objection) said basically, "yeah, under this legislation the same is even true for Chinese and "gypsies." 2) They (of course) ignore most all of what Justice Gray in WKA says, but especially ignore p. 693 "It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides[.]" Then it becomes "his parents were there legally!" (Yes, but what the hell does that have to do with jurisdiction; and, iac, Plyler v. Doe says juisdiction exists as to illegals). "But in Plyer the key phrase with 'within its jurisdiction.' 'Subject to' signifies something different!" (You avoid saying how it's different; but, iac, Gray in WKA (as noted in Plyler) states the two phrases are co-extensive as to jurisdiction.) "That's just dicta!" . . . .

It's all such a mental shell game with them.


User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11635
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#120

Post by Chilidog »

noblepa wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:32 pm
An illegal immigrant, on the other hand, CAN be prosecuted for crimes committed here. They ARE subject to our laws.
What everyone seems to be missing here is that the 14th applies to the child, not the parents

It is not illegal to be born in this country.

And a person born here is neither an immigrant nor an alien.


User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14397
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#121

Post by Dolly »

Recent comments here have reminded me of this Heritage post (Yeah, I know, Heritage - the well of Right Wing whatever :bag: )
I don't intend my comment/link to be THE ANSWER to any of this. But I thought it was interesting and it mentions stuff that keeps getting brought up now.

subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States.

“Indians not taxed.”

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else . . . subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Indians, he concluded, were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes.

Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court decided that a native Indian who had renounced allegiance to his tribe did not become “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States by virtue of the renunciation.

Wong Kim Ark

February 17, 2011
Defining Citizens: Congress, Citizenship, and the Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment
<<Edward Erler
Senior Fellow, Claremont Institute; Professor of Political Science Emeritus, California State University, San Bernardino
Professor of Political Science at California State University>>

There is a widespread belief that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically confers citizenship to anybody simply born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of his or her parents. In reality, birthright citizenship is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause, but more fundamentally, with the principle of consent—one of the bedrocks of republican government. From a constitutional point of view, the inclusion of the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” indicates that mere birth is not sufficient to acquire citizenship. Congress, consistent with the highest principles of equal citizenship and consent, would do well to clarify who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers. <SNIP>
https://www.heritage.org/the-constituti ... fourteenth


Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#122

Post by noblepa »

Chilidog wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 6:44 pm
noblepa wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 3:32 pm
An illegal immigrant, on the other hand, CAN be prosecuted for crimes committed here. They ARE subject to our laws.
What everyone seems to be missing here is that the 14th applies to the child, not the parents

It is not illegal to be born in this country.

And a person born here is neither an immigrant nor an alien.
True, except that in the context of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", it is the parents that are being referred to. That is why children of diplomats are not citizens. For purposes of the 14th, at least, they inherit their parents status as being exempt from US jurisdiction.

Even the opponents of birthright citizenship do not say it is a crime to be born here. They claim that the parents are somehow not subject to the jurisdiction of US laws. I was merely trying to contrast the status of an illegal immigrant to that of a foreign diplomat, which the historical record pretty clearly shows was the reason for including that phrase: to prevent children of foreign diplomats from becoming citizens at birth.


User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 4402
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#123

Post by Gregg »

I think, I'm not sure mind you, that the children of diplomats born here are not automatically citizens, but they do have the option to claim US citizenship if they so choose when they become adults. I seem to remember one of the Saudis who was at Gitmo was the son of a person who had diplomatic immunity and had been born here, and there was some question of whether he might be a US Citizen if he claimed to be.

Anyone else remember that?


Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky
User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14397
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#124

Post by Dolly »

Gregg wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:18 pm I think, I'm not sure mind you, that the children of diplomats born here are not automatically citizens, but they do have the option to claim US citizenship if they so choose when they become adults. I seem to remember one of the Saudis who was at Gitmo was the son of a person who had diplomatic immunity and had been born here, and there was some question of whether he might be a US Citizen if he claimed to be.

Anyone else remember that?
Dang!! I was gonna go to bed and took the bait! No. I don't remember that and I haven't found anything about it yet by googling..

This was interesting.
USCIS Policy Manual
Current as of October 30, 2018
Volume 7 - Adjustment of Status
Part O - Registration
Chapter 3 - Foreign Nationals Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats
A. Purpose
The child of a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the U.S. Department of State who is born in the United States may voluntarily register for lawful permanent residence. [1]

B. Background
Foreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities. Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” [2] DHS regulations, however, have long allowed these children to choose to be considered lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the time of birth. [3]

Registration as a permanent resident under this provision is entirely voluntary, but it does involve an application process.

This registration process is necessary and available only if both parents were foreign nationals when the child was born. If one parent was an accredited diplomat, but the other was a U.S. citizen or non-citizen U.S. national, then the child was “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and is a citizen.

C. Legal Authority
•8 CFR 101.3 – Creation of record of lawful permanent resident status for person born under diplomatic status in the United States

•8 CFR 264.2 – Application for creation of record of permanent residence

D. Eligibility Requirements
To register permanent residence as a foreign national born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the Department of State, the applicant must meet the following eligibility requirements: <SNIP>
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Prin ... pter3.html


Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Trump to eliminate birthright citizenship

#125

Post by noblepa »

Dolly wrote: Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:38 pm
USCIS Policy Manual
Current as of October 30, 2018
Volume 7 - Adjustment of Status
Part O - Registration
Chapter 3 - Foreign Nationals Born in the United States to Accredited Diplomats
A. Purpose
The child of a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the U.S. Department of State who is born in the United States may voluntarily register for lawful permanent residence. [1]

B. Background
Foreign diplomats enjoy certain immunities under international law. The spouse and child of a diplomat generally enjoy similar immunities. Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” [2] DHS regulations, however, have long allowed these children to choose to be considered lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from the time of birth. [3]

Registration as a permanent resident under this provision is entirely voluntary, but it does involve an application process.

This registration process is necessary and available only if both parents were foreign nationals when the child was born. If one parent was an accredited diplomat, but the other was a U.S. citizen or non-citizen U.S. national, then the child was “born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and is a citizen.

C. Legal Authority
•8 CFR 101.3 – Creation of record of lawful permanent resident status for person born under diplomatic status in the United States

•8 CFR 264.2 – Application for creation of record of permanent residence

D. Eligibility Requirements
To register permanent residence as a foreign national born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited by the Department of State, the applicant must meet the following eligibility requirements: <SNIP>
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/Prin ... pter3.html
This all goes to show, despite what Trump and his flying monkeys might think, that citizenship can be a very complicated issue, even under current law. If the law is changed, the risk of unintended consequences goes up very quickly.


Post Reply

Return to “Current Events”