U.S. Philippines Ambassador warns of deportation under Trump

Trump is a businessman and knows how to make deals that’s what it will take to end the Russian Ukraine war. - @Morgacj200424

No.

He just has to stop Biden's stupidy, then work to restore the democratc govermnent of Ukraine that Obama removed in favour of his puppet.

As POTUS, he has defacto control of NATO, so he can stop that group's military expansionism, thus limit the military threat to Russia.

As said why cant we stay on topic? Not bring political rhetoric into a civilized conversation,,, go start a new thread for those interested instead of railroading the OP. New thread or find another site where the members will rub your back.

Got me stuffed why the political crap and some seem so passionate from some members even bother to be introduced into a harmless thread that never mentioned politics nor views on the same.

Grab your goolies, start another topic and stop hijacking interesting threads that have nothing to do with politics,,,,, golly religion will be next.

Let it go guys.

OMO.

Cheers, Steve.   

Why don't all of us join the Malaysian version of Expat. Then we won't have to read a certain posters babble.

Or the US version of Expat Bob?

The constant railroading of posts here has me beat when it comes to political diatribe with no need. Start a new post venting your (not you Bob) anguish and opinions or simply go to a politically aligned site with like minded people that will rub your back or ass.

The topic remains "deportations" no matter country.

Cheers, Steve.

If Trump removes illegal foreign citizens, will countries retaliate?

If Trump goes further and removes or refuses foreigners' visas, will countries do the same to US citizens?

Perhaps US expats might like to check flights .... just in case.

If Trump removes illegal foreign citizens, will countries retaliate?
If Trump goes further and removes or refuses foreigners' visas, will countries do the same to US citizens?
Perhaps US expats might like to check flights .... just in case. - @Fred

Brazil did that a few years ago.  Since Brazilians were not given a tourist visa upon entry to the US, Americans must now obtain a tourist visa before entering Brazil.

Fred said. . . . If Trump removes illegal foreign citizens, will countries retaliate?

******************************

That's a mouthfull.

illegals are not citizens.

If Trump removes illegal foreign citizens, will countries retaliate?
If Trump goes further and removes or refuses foreigners' visas, will countries do the same to US citizens?
Perhaps US expats might like to check flights .... just in case. - @Fred
Brazil did that a few years ago. Since Brazilians were not given a tourist visa upon entry to the US, Americans must now obtain a tourist visa before entering Brazil.
- @mugtech

I can imagine an immigration war as well as a trade war.

Nobody will win, but my old moan about idiots (politicians) ruining people's lives is likely to come true.

The more extreme (and stupid) the politician, the more people messed up.

Fred said. . . . If Trump removes illegal foreign citizens, will countries retaliate?
******************************
That's a mouthfull.
illegals are not citizens.
- @Enzyte Bob

But they are foreign citizens,  that is. Citizens of a nonUSA country.

@Morgacj200424

@Fred

Your not so subtle comments comparing Trump to Hitler and so on are tiring. Kamala and company tried this and you can see how far it got them? Trump is a businessman and knows how to make deals that’s what it will take to end the Russian Ukraine war.

It is astonishing to me hearing educated people mindlessly parotting the globalist world order narratives without doing any independent research. People like Fred are highly attuned to the globalist messages and buzz words of the elite powers such as the WEF leadership and they will mindlessly repeat the narratives or key words when so-triggered. They are good soldiers of the new world order envisioned ny klause schwab (" you will own mothing snd be happy"). In other topics Fred has shown that he can contribute independently but when it comes to Trump, his robo instinct takes over and it's just a tired repeat of key words like "hitler" (rather unimaginative and stupid),  "felon" (actually Trump is not convicted yet), rapist (slander)  fascist and on and on ad nauseum. I guess that's my only comment. Fred, actually an anti-american policy conservative, is not alone. Other liberals on the forum do the same but in their case, they sort of have to repeat the narratives in keeping their secular progressive street cred woth their peers. It is all nonsense of course; in high school we learned that name calling is the surest way to lose a debate and the only way to be believable is to cite empirical (provable) "facts". Accusing Trump of being Hitler just doesn't cut it in that regard. I think Fred and the liberals know that but they cannot help themselves. It has become a Pavolivian response to then. You say " Trump", they respond "hitler!" without even thinking. They cannot help it. Hopefully they will recover their critical thinking skills some day.

@danfinn

“Hopefully they will recover their critical thinking skills some day.”

That would sure be nice.

@Morgacj200424
@Fred
Your not so subtle comments comparing Trump to Hitler and so on are tiring.  - @danfinn

What comments?

"felon" (actually Trump is not convicted yet), - @danfinn

Given that is a lie, one has to consider your other claims are made up as well.

"felon" (actually Trump is not convicted yet),  - @danfinn Given that is a lie, one has to consider your other claims are made up as well. - @Fred

Wrong, Fred. In the US legal system, even though the kangaroo court found him guilty. he has not been sentenced yet.

Conviction dies not occur until the time of sentencing.

Trump's sentencing has been delayed for at least 4 years until after his term expires. Maybe he will never be sentenced so:

Trump had not been convicted yet, not for at least 4 years, maybe never.

And now to my surprise you went ad hominem and called me a liar and questioned my credibility.

Let me reciprocate and call you a narcissistic shoot-from-the-hip a-hole who doesn't know how to check his facts.

@Fred

How about Xi Jinping? I don't believe he is guilty of any mass murders (I stand to being corrected), he has started zero wars, and his reign has seen political stability and a lot of wealth for his country. Should we hate him because he runs a one party system?

Hate is an emotive word. Your favourite dictator Xi Jinping has had hundreds of Chinese netizens disappear on his watch. While the country remains a dictatorship you very well know that he can never be called to account in a court of law. Maybe he did not pull the trigger but neither does the army general that orders the execution squad to fire. Just like your new president Prabowo in Indonesia who you voted for (yes you are an Indonesian citizen not a subject) and slavishly revere on the Indonesian Forum. The US government banned him from US soil for 20 years because of the disappearance of 12 opposition activists during the reign of Suharto, another dictator. General Prabowo was his right hand man just as General Fabian Ver was the henchman for Ferdinand Marcos Sr.

You certainly know how to ‘pick em’ Fred.

If Trump removes illegal foreign citizens, will countries retaliate?If Trump goes further and removes or refuses foreigners' visas, will countries do the same to US citizens?Perhaps US expats might like to check flights .... just in case. - @Fred Brazil did that a few years ago. Since Brazilians were not given a tourist visa upon entry to the US, Americans must now obtain a tourist visa before entering Brazil. - @mugtech

I generally favor that thinking. Reciprocation is fine when applied to immigration laws. Duterte used to threaten Americans with the same thing and I would not have objected to that either. For sure  it fired up the nationalist spirit amongst some locals here but it appears that the reason countries apply visa waivers to foreigners from 1st world countries is to encourage tourism. For example, if duterte had actually cancelled visa waiver for Westetners or just  Americans, that would have been a boon to neighboring countries that the Philippines competes with in bringing in high dollar tourists. For permsnent residents we already have visas for the Phils and the Phils makes SRRV very easy to get. Brazil on the other hand is a large economy. It is more like China where loss of tourist income is not such a high impact. And who can complain if countries reciprocate with their visa rules? Fair is fair.

Brazilian and most SA tourism is not a big deal for Americans in the same way as Mexican and Carribean tourism tends to be. And if their visa policies cause Americans to spend their tourist money back home instead, that's not so bad either.

And if they are shooting themselves in the foot that is their problem. That was basically Trump's response to duterte's threats in 2017-2018.

Hate is an emotive word. Your favourite dictator Xi Jinping has had hundreds of Chinese netizens disappear on his watch. - @Lotus Eater

Evidence, please

For permsnent residents we already have visas for the Phils and the Phils makes SRRV very easy to get. - @danfinn

Today.

However the anti-US vice president has made death threats against the pro-US president. She clearly has a few of daddy's genes.

That or, if Trump goes totally off the rails and starts getting rid of legal immigrants, public pressure on non-corrupt Marcos (there's a laugh) could see your visa go Bongbong bye bye.

All your last president did against drugs and your new dude has a name that sounds like a weed smoking tool. That's political change for you.

A few changes at the top could very well see your visa revoked.

Still, I suppose you'll want to go home to Trump heaven soon anyway. After all, your glorious leader says immigration is bad so you'd better follow his words.

You don't want to be accused of being a pro-immigration dem, now do you?

Out of interest, if Trump says immigration is bad (unless you marry them and bring their family over), how come Trump supports live outside the US?

Fred said. . . . Out of interest, if Trump says immigration is bad (unless you marry them and bring their family over)

**********************************

Legal immigration is good as Trump has been touting for years.

Legal immigrants are educated compared to what has been crossing over the boarders during the current administration.

Legal immigration is good as Trump has been touting for years.
- @Enzyte Bob

Trump doesn't agree with you

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/04/us/p … ation.html

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/ … s-dfc09979

https://www.cato.org/blog/president-tru … mmigration

Trump acted against legal migration last time, and will probably do so again.

Countries might well return the favour

Watch out, US legal immigrants all over the world - You might lose your visa if Trump pushes too hard.

Dan Finn you are absolutely on point. My wife’s brother’s petition (her dad was the petitioner) took more than 20 years to be approved because he was married and had kids. He died shortly before the petition was approved. Sadly his wife and college educated children had to stay in the PI as their father was deceased . Yes it really pisses my wife and her family off to see all of these people walking illegally across the border. It’s about time the USA enters the 21st century and secures its borders. - @Morgacj200424
My mom's petition (her dad was the petitioner) took over 10 years to get approved. The approval of her petition took longer than her unmarried siblings' approval because her petition included us, her family. I think the plan of the current administration to expedite the granting of visas and citizenship to millions of illegal aliens who entered the US in the past 4 years is unfair to us who waited for years for the approval of our petition and to those who are still awaiting their approval for years. I'm glad that the incoming administration is bent on enforcing policies which will be fair to those who entered America legally.
- @FilAmericanMom
You must have hated Ronnie Raygun
- @mugtech

Hate is a strong word. I don't hate anyone. I just dislike the bad character of a few people.

As dannfinn mentioned, I was a teenager when Reagan was President. My focus at that time was more on getting good grades and passing college entrance exams. So most of what I knew about Reagan was that he was President, a former actor, was shot but survived, and helped Marcos flee the Philippines after Cory Aquino won in the snap elections in 1986.

My parents' petition was approved in the early 80's. But they were ambivalent about living in America. Their original plan for me was that I finish college first before going to the US. But with the growing civil unrest here in the Philippines after Ninoy Aquino was assassinated in 1983, and in light of the unpredictability of what will transpire after Marcos vs. Aquino snap elections in 1986, their plan changed. We were all going America, and might return depending on the political situation. Then People Power happened a few weeks before our scheduled flight. We still went to the US, got my and my sibling's green cards, my parents renewed theirs. My parents returned to the Philippines after 2 weeks, my sister and I after 2 months, going to America every year or so to renew our green cards, but staying for only a few weeks.

It was only in the early 2000's that I learned about Reagan's amnesty program after watching a news clip about a Filipino family who were being deported to the Philippines. The couple's 2 daughters, who were both born in the US, had to leave the country with their parents as they did not have any family members in the US who could help take care of them.. The couple said they did not apply for amnesty because they had their doubts about the program, and thought it was a ploy by the government to entrap illegal immigrants.

Going back and forth to America just to renew my green card was getting expensive. Not only do I (or rather my parents) have to purchase a ticket. But I also had to bring pasalubongs to a lot of relatives in the US. (Almost all of my aunts, uncles, living grandparents, were all there.) So I decided to apply for citizenship. Shortly after I got the citizenship, I met my husband and stayed. Now we're in the Philippines.

For permsnent residents we already have visas for the Phils and the Phils makes SRRV very easy to get. - @danfinn
Today.
However the anti-US vice president has made death threats against the pro-US president. She clearly has a few of daddy's genes.
That or, if Trump goes totally off the rails and starts getting rid of legal immigrants, public pressure on non-corrupt Marcos (there's a laugh) could see your visa go Bongbong bye bye.
All your last president did against drugs and your new dude has a name that sounds like a weed smoking tool. That's political change for you.
A few changes at the top could very well see your visa revoked.
Still, I suppose you'll want to go home to Trump heaven soon anyway. After all, your glorious leader says immigration is bad so you'd better follow his words.
You don't want to be accused of being a pro-immigration dem, now do you?

Out of interest, if Trump says immigration is bad (unless you marry them and bring their family over), how come Trump supports live outside the US? - @Fred

No response to your being called out on Trump's "convictions"? No apology for your ad hominem attacks? Damn... I'm not sure if I will keep this up. It's like pissing in the wind.

So now you want to discuss what would happen to my expat life in the Philippines "IF" various unlikely political events were to occur. I agree, Fred: "What  IFs" are a big problem. IF a large asteroid plunges into the Philippine Sea, many of us expats who survived might have to leave 😆.

It occurs to me that you are assuming that most expats in the Philippines would be in deep trouble if the SRRV and I suppose other visa's like 13A were canceled. I cannot figure out why you think that is such a big problem. Permanent visa holders almost universally  have the choice of living at home or in the host country; this is how SRRV and 13A are structured. I am here for family reasons and I do enjoy being in the same Country as my wife's family. That is why I chose SRRV.

Obviously we expats must have the flexibility to be able to move back home at a moment's notice under any of a number of conditions including host country politics, health care, natural disasters and the like.

We don't just move here permanently and expect to stay forever or if we do, we still have the wherewithal to move back home or to another country if required. Which brings me back to the reason you assume that is problem for me: Would *you* have a problem if, for example, 88% Muslim Indonesia installed a fundamentallist radical government that imposed Sharia law on you, forcing a choice for you to convert to Islam,  leave the country or be beheaded? 😄 It "could" happen Fred. "IF".

Are you implying you would have a problem going back home in the UK and resettling there or in any other friendly country?

I will not address your other issues involving Philippine leadership as I am not a Filipino.

No response to your being called out on Trump's "convictions"? No apology for your ad hominem attacks? Damn... I'm not sure if I will keep this up. It's like pissing in the wind.
- @danfinn

He was tried and convicted, but not sentenced.

30 May 2024 was the date he became a convicted felon on 34 counts of being corrupt.

You may not like it, but your boy is a convicted criminal.

Is it time to claim the US justice system is corrupt again?

However, he's also an extremist that might well turn a lot of expats lives upside down.

His long record against illegal immigration is clearly a good thing, but his work against legal immigrants might well impact US passport holders with legal status in places like the Philippines.

One political change that sees a pro-capitalist shift to working with China and the fallout could very well see US expats kicked out of the country.

As a note, the CIA under an NED flag supported the new president of the Philippines- The one his vice wants dead - but that funding could dry up under a Trump/Musk government intent on saving money with no thought as to US interests in the region.

Maybe you should have a grab bag next to your bed.

        Trump repeated some of his oldies but goodies today.  He repeated his desire to change the 14th amendment,  which provides immediate citizenship for anyone born in the USA.  He claimed again that the USA is the only country where this is done.  Of course it is also true in Canada and Mexico, most of South America, and about 20 other countries.  Loves to hang on to those old lies.

    Trump repeated some of his oldies but goodies today. He repeated his desire to change the 14th amendment, which provides immediate citizenship for anyone born in the USA. He claimed again that the USA is the only country where this is done. Of course it is also true in Canada and Mexico, most of South America, and about 20 other countries. Loves to hang on to those old lies. - @mugtech

Sure, Trump might put that suggestion out there. Whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or an Independent, you don't need to worry. Changing or re-defining the 14th Amendment will not happen, at least during Trump's second term. A Constitutional Amendment cannot be changed with an Executive Order. Changing a Constitutional Amendment would require a two-thirds majority vote from both the Senate (66 votes out of 100) and House of Representatives (288 votes out of 435). Current Senate: GOP: 53; Dems: 47. Current House: GOP: 220; Dems: 215. Unless the Amendment would be about raising the salaries and perks of elected officials, I doubt any changes would happen.

mugtech said. . . .   Trump repeated some of his oldies but goodies today. He repeated his desire to change the 14th amendment, which provides immediate citizenship for anyone born in the USA. He claimed again that the USA is the only country where this is done. Of course it is also true in Canada and Mexico, most of South America, and about 20 other countries. Loves to hang on to those old lies.

********************************

The 14th amend, over 150 years ago, was to guarantee citizen rights to freed black slaves.

It is a loophole which allows hundred of thousands children of illegals each year to become US citizens. Thousands & thousands of pregnant Chinese women have come to the US to have their child and then board a plane with their US citizen child and return back to China.

After 150 years this loophole should be updated to reflect today's world.

mugtech said. . . . Trump repeated some of his oldies but goodies today. He repeated his desire to change the 14th amendment, which provides immediate citizenship for anyone born in the USA. He claimed again that the USA is the only country where this is done. Of course it is also true in Canada and Mexico, most of South America, and about 20 other countries. Loves to hang on to those old lies.
********************************
The 14th amend, over 150 years ago, was to guarantee citizen rights to freed black slaves.
It is a loophole which allows hundred of thousands children of illegals each year to become US citizens. Thousands & thousands of pregnant Chinese women have come to the US to have their child and then board a plane with their US citizen child and return back to China.

After 150 years this loophole should be updated to reflect today's world. - @Enzyte Bob

Trump failed last time

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213186

Can we believe him this time? After all, he lies a lot and supports chain migration- Look at his porn star wife.

“Can we believe him this time? After all, he lies a lot and supports chain migration- Look at his porn star wife.”

Your comments coming from a non American are becoming more and more irrelevant and offensive. 

Fred said . . . .Can we believe him this time? After all, he lies a lot and supports chain migration- Look at his porn star wife.

***********************************

Your wife has to look at you. . . I think Trump has the better deal.

“Can we believe him this time? After all, he lies a lot and supports chain migration- Look at his porn star wife.”
Your comments coming from a non American are becoming more and more irrelevant and offensive. - @Morgacj200424

Have his latest wife's tits been all over the Internet because she posed for the pictures for money?

If so, she's a porn star, thus my facts are correct.

Did the porn star's parents enter the US through chain migration?

Given he married a porn star (as opposed to quick sex and lying about it), then she brought her family over, Trump clearly supports immigration and chain immigration.

It's odd because he claims not to.

Hang on, what happened to freedom of speech?

Are you saying you only support it when people agree with you and/or don't bring up things you don't like to hear?

    Trump repeated some of his oldies but goodies today. He repeated his desire to change the 14th amendment, which provides immediate citizenship for anyone born in the USA. He claimed again that the USA is the only country where this is done. Of course it is also true in Canada and Mexico, most of South America, and about 20 other countries. Loves to hang on to those old lies. - @mugtech

Let's see. As usual, such issues are a bit too complicated for most "social justice" warriers (or tired old, fossilized liberals)  to conceptualize. You really need an IQ of at keast 85 or 90 but I will try.

The pertinent section of the 24th amend. citizenship clause states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdicRtion thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

"And subject to the jurisdiction...thereof" meaning, 'and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'.

The child is by necessity subject to the same jurisdiction as the parents both before and after birth.

This means of course that children of persons subject to the jurisdiction of another country...such as children of diplomats, visitors, Illegal aliens from Mexico, SA or Philippines...are NOT IN SCOPE of the 14th amendment.

Which parent(s) are present in the US and  subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

One of both of whom are USA Citizens.

Why only citizens? Because only US citizens are not primarily subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

Sorry folks, this also includes green card holders (permanent residents) because such parents are citizens of foreign countries. However, in term of legal green card holders, many of us had children in the USA with a green card filipina but our children are citizens because they derived citizenship from the American spouse.

Remember, if a US citizen is a parent of a child born in the Philippines, then that child can also be declared a US citizen because one parent was  "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" even though living outside the US.

It is not WHERE the child was born, it is WHO the child was born to. Can you figure that out  mugtick?

The pertinent section of the 24th amend. citizenship clause states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdicRtion thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

"And subject to the jurisdiction...thereof" meaning, 'and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'.

The child is by necessity subject to the same jurisdiction as the parents both before and after birth.

This means of course that children of persons subject to the jurisdiction of another country...such as children of diplomats, visitors, Illegal aliens from Mexico, SA or Philippines...are NOT IN SCOPE of the 14th amendment.

Which parent(s) are present in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

One of both of whom are USA Citizens.

Why only citizens? Because only US citizens are not primarily subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

Sorry folks, this also includes green card holders (permanent residents) because such parents are citizens of foreign countries. However, in term of legal green card holders, many of us had children in the USA with a green card filipina but our children are citizens because they derived citizenship from the American spouse.

Remember, if a US citizen is a parent of a child born in the Philippines, then that child can also be declared a US citizen because one parent was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" even though living outside the US.

It is not WHERE the child was born, it is WHO the child was born to. - @danfinn

I agree. Even permanent residents' kids who were born in the US, where neither parent is a US citizen, should not be immediately granted citizenship just because they were born in the US. Instead, they would be given permanent resident visas. And when they reach the age of 18, they can apply for American citizenship if they want.

It is not WHERE the child was born, it is WHO the child was born to. Can you figure that out mugtick? - @danfinn

Let me get this right.

If a gay black terrorist who was the product of two US citizens was born in Saudi, you would welcome him as a US citizen. Is that correct?

Equally, if Obama was born outside the US, he could still be president, right?

“Can we believe him this time? After all, he lies a lot and supports chain migration- Look at his porn star wife.”
Your comments coming from a non American are becoming more and more irrelevant and offensive. - @Morgacj200 424

Its OK Morgac.

We won!

Damn it feels great, everytime Fred gives me the opportunity to say it! 😃

It is not WHERE the child was born, it is WHO the child was born to. Can you figure that out mugtick? - @danfinn
Let me get this right.

If a gay black terrorist who was the product of two US If a gay black terrorist who was the product of two US citizens was born in Saudi, you would welcome him as a US citizen. Is that correct?citizens was born in Saudi, you would welcome him as a US citizen. Is that correct?

Race is irrelevant. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. He would be a US citizen although. if charged with terrorism, he could be extradited if not "welcomed" to the US.

Whether he is welcome or not is irrelevant.

The fact is, he would be an American criminal subject to the US justice system

You are full of WHAT IFs these days.

Equally, if Obama was born outside the US, he could still be president, right? - @Fred

Equally, if Obama was born outside the US, he could still be president, right? - @Fred - @danfinn

So the 'birthers' were wrong to question Obama's eligibility for president?

Equally, if Obama was born outside the US, he could still be president, right? - @Fred - @danfinn So the 'birthers' were wrong to question Obama's eligibility for president? - @Fred

It takes more than US citizenship to qualify for President. Arnold Swartznegger was a US citizen, he was governor of California but could not run for President because he was not born in the US. You are mixing apples and oranges.

Requirement:

The minimum qualifications for the presidency of the United States specified in Article II of the Constitution are few and seemingly straightforward: In order to be President, a person must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, must be at least thirty-five years old, and must have been a resident of the United States for fourteen years.

Since Obama was born in Africa, he wad not natural born (as you speculate), and his status should have been challenged more vigorously but that is no longer important since the damage is done, he set back race relations at least 50 years.

  Trump repeated some of his oldies but goodies today. He repeated his desire to change the 14th amendment, which provides immediate citizenship for anyone born in the USA. He claimed again that the USA is the only country where this is done. Of course it is also true in Canada and Mexico, most of South America, and about 20 other countries. Loves to hang on to those old lies. - @mugtech
Let's see. As usual, such issues are a bit too complicated for most "social justice" warriers (or tired old, fossilized liberals) to conceptualize. You really need an IQ of at keast 85 or 90 but I will try.
The pertinent section of the 24th amend. citizenship clause states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdicRtion thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

"And subject to the jurisdiction...thereof" meaning, 'and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'.

The child is by necessity subject to the same jurisdiction as the parents both before and after birth.

This means of course that children of persons subject to the jurisdiction of another country...such as children of diplomats, visitors, Illegal aliens from Mexico, SA or Philippines...are NOT IN SCOPE of the 14th amendment.

Which parent(s) are present in the US and subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

One of both of whom are USA Citizens.

Why only citizens? Because only US citizens are not primarily subject to any foreign jurisdiction.

Sorry folks, this also includes green card holders (permanent residents) because such parents are citizens of foreign countries. However, in term of legal green card holders, many of us had children in the USA with a green card filipina but our children are citizens because they derived citizenship from the American spouse.

Remember, if a US citizen is a parent of a child born in the Philippines, then that child can also be declared a US citizen because one parent was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" even though living outside the US.

It is not WHERE the child was born, it is WHO the child was born to. Can you figure that out mugtick? - @danfinn

Bull.  Any illegal aliens living in the USA are subject to the USA laws and the states in which they reside. Heard a few have been arrested.  Therefore any children born to such people are automatically citizens of the USA..  Comparing diplomats to illegal aliens is just nonsense, Danfink.  How does it work in Mexico and Canada and most of SA.  This has nothing to do with social justice warriors but how the 14th amendment is worded and has been interpreted for 150 years

Since Obama was born in Africa, he wad not natural born

oh goodie, another Trump classic lie. Perpetuated by Danfink.

Since Obama was born in Africa, he wad not natural born (as you speculate), and his status should have been challenged more vigorously but that is no longer important since the damage is done, he set back race relations at least 50 years. - @danfinn

Sorry, I thought that was last decade idiocy. I had no idea people still pushed the lie.

However, the member of the US right here clearly support Obama's right to become president regardless of his place of birth.