Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order

[baseline bum]

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html
Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0d21nQBY8o

President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

Why it matters: This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting "anchor babies" and "chain migration." And it will set off another stand-off with the courts, as Trump’s power to do this through executive action is debatable to say the least.

Trump told "Axios on HBO" that he has run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed with the highly controversial move, which certainly will face legal challenges.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said, declaring he can do it by executive order.
When told that's very much in dispute, Trump replied: "You can definitely do it with an Act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order."

"We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits," Trump continued. "It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." (More than 30 countries, most in the Western Hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.)
"It's in the process. It'll happen ... with an executive order."

The president expressed surprise that "Axios on HBO" knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one. "

Behind the scenes: "Axios on HBO" had been working for weeks on a story on Trump’s plans for birthright citizenship, based on conversations with several sources, including one close to the White House Counsel’s office.

The legal challenges would force the courts to decide on a constitutional debate over the 14th Amendment, which says:

"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."
Be smart: Few immigration and constitutional scholars believe it is within the president's power to change birthright citizenship, former U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services chief counsel Lynden Melmed tells Axios.

But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.

John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" originally referred to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — green card holders and citizens.

Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.

Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)

But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."

Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.

Between 1980 and 2006, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants — which opponents of birthright citizenship call "anchor babies" — skyrocketed to a peak of 370,000, according to a 2016 study by Pew Research. It then declined slightly during and following the Great Recession.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that children born to immigrants who are legal permanent residents have citizenship. But those who claim the 14th Amendment should not apply to everyone point to the fact that there has been no ruling on a case specifically involving undocumented immigrants or those with temporary legal status.

The bottom line: If Trump follows through on the executive order, "the courts would have to weigh in in a way they haven't," Eastman said.

[baseline bum]

Hey rmt, tell me again how you wanted a president who would follow the constitution.

[Reck]

Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.

[Winehole23]

Originalists and other interested people can find the Senate debates regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (the immediate precursor to the 14th Amendment) here. Seems pretty clear the majority then thought persons born on US soil are citizens regardless of the immigration status of their parents. They understood they were crafting standards for citizenship and civil rights beyond freed slaves.

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag....db&recNum=602 (https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=070/llcg070.db&recNum=602)

[Winehole23]

Supreme Court precedent here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

Children born to (then) racially ineligible parents are US citizens.

[Pavlov]

Executive orders good now.

[Winehole23]

Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.Trump can run it up the flagpole and see if SCOTUS salutes.

But no, probably not.

[benefactor]

Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.
No. This is just episode #765 of The Idiot Chronicles: Donald Trump Edition

[Winehole23]

Executive orders good now.They were bad only because the other party was holding power and the black president issued them.

[baseline bum]

Executive orders good now.

Constitution bad now

[baseline bum]

Trump can run it up the flagpole and see if SCOTUS salutes.

But no, probably not.

RapeK would consent

[spurraider21]

Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.
no would be immediately challenged, hit with an injunction, and is completely unconstitutional tbh

[Pavlov]

RapeK would consent:lol RapeyK wanted to imprison a refugee applicant until she was forced to shit out a kid. Of course he'd try to find a way to pwn the browns again.

[CitizenDwayne]

Repugs seem to be avoiding this thread. Can’t say I blame them

[Winehole23]

nm

[Winehole23]

RapeK would consentWHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

[HWoodNixon]

Repugs seem to be avoiding this thread. Can’t say I blame them

very true. Why aren’t republicans saying anything about this???

[MultiTroll]

You opposing dumbphucks are supporting Chinese who fly in at 8 months and set up shop at hotels for sole purpose of having baby here. To boot they stiff the hospitals on the bill.
Same with Messicans who come across at 8 1/2 months and park by the ER room.

Stop rewarding criminal behavior.

STFU you snowflakes.

[Winehole23]

if you don't like it, change the 14th Amendment

[baseline bum]

https://media.giphy.com/media/xFmpcZ8YMqeXICFsjf/giphy.gif

[LkrFan]

Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.

He can't. He's lying to Chris and CosmicNutcase (his base).

[Blake]

You opposing dumbphucks are supporting Chinese who fly in at 8 months and set up shop at hotels for sole purpose of having baby here. To boot they stiff the hospitals on the bill.
Same with Messicans who come across at 8 1/2 months and park by the ER room.

Stop rewarding criminal behavior.

STFU you snowflakes.

Build a hospital wall

[FrostKing]

very true. Why aren’t republicans saying anything about this???
?

No brainer change.

The debate is whether Trump should use executive order or allow Congress to vote?

[spurraider21]

?

No brainer change.

The debate is whether Trump should use executive order or allow Congress to vote?
neither. you'd need to amend the constitution

[FrostKing]

neither. you'd need to amend the constitution
You defend anchor babies?

[spurraider21]

You defend anchor babies?
the constitution does

[FrostKing]

the constitution does
So we update it. Make it more progressive. Same with guns possibly one day

[boutons_deux]

Trump citizenship plan may not conflict with constitution: Pence
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-citizenship-pence/trump-citizenship-plan-may-not-conflict-with-constitution-pence-idUSKCN1N426J?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Reuters%2FPoliticsNews+%28Reu ters+Politics+News%29

... Pence oscillating between Trash's dick up his ass or deepthroating Trash.

[spurraider21]

So we update it. Make it more progressive. Same with guns possibly one day
and that's why i said you'd need to amend the constitution

[boutons_deux]

racist LG still campaigning to replace racist JeBo

U.S. senator says will offer bill to back Trump birthright citizenship plan

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-citizenship-graham/u-s-senator-says-will-offer-bill-to-back-trump-birthright-citizenship-plan-idUSKCN1N426C?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

[Chinook]

It's another thing like eugenics where it could in theory be a good thing but can't be implemented without some bullshit prejudice being added to it. Like there are obviously people who do game the system, and finding a way to prevent them from doing that would be a great thing. Just has too many costs that some folks don't give a shit about because it doesn't affect them or people who look like them.

No point in talking about whether Trump can do this -- he can't. But it would be nice if we could have a legit discussion on how we handle citizenship and immigration. I think the current policies are open for changing if they can get a good plan together. But they can't, so they're not.

[boutons_deux]

"eugenics where it could in theory be a good thing"

:lol WTF?

[Spurminator]

1057215526886404098

[Winehole23]

just a stunt doesn't excuse it. it's nativist demagoguery.

[boutons_deux]

it's dog whistle to his racist, cult mob:

"I hate browns, I approve of you hating browns"

and like dead Jews, "I won't be really bothered, except pro forma, if y'all kill a bunch of browns"

[Blake]

neither. you'd need to amend the constitution


You defend anchor babies?


the constitution does


So we update it. Make it more progressive. Same with guns possibly one day


and that's why i said you'd need to amend the constitution

Lol frostking

[rmt]

It's another thing like eugenics where it could in theory be a good thing but can't be implemented without some bullshit prejudice being added to it. Like there are obviously people who do game the system, and finding a way to prevent them from doing that would be a great thing. Just has too many costs that some folks don't give a shit about because it doesn't affect them or people who look like them.

No point in talking about whether Trump can do this -- he can't. But it would be nice if we could have a legit discussion on how we handle citizenship and immigration. I think the current policies are open for changing if they can get a good plan together. But they can't, so they're not.

Some posters here don't seem to notice Trump's pattern of "going overboard" on whatever topic he would like discussed. Of course, he can't do it - he'll be sued just like he is for just about every EO he puts out there (whether it's constitutional or not).

[Blake]

Some posters here don't seem to notice Trump's pattern of "going overboard" on whatever topic he would like discussed. Of course, he can't do it - he'll be sued just like he is for just about every EO he puts out there (whether it's constitutional or not).

Trump is an idiot like that, amirite?

[Pavlov]

Some posters here don't seem to notice Trump's pattern of "going overboard" on whatever topic he would like discussed. Of course, he can't do it - he'll be sued just like he is for just about every EO he puts out there (whether it's constitutional or not).It's called lying.

Trump lies.

Just admit it. Don't try to compare him to anyone else.

[rmt]

Well, he certainly gets some of you going. Where above do I compare him to anyone else?

[Chinook]

"eugenics where it could in theory be a good thing"

:lol WTF?

There are people who shouldn't have kids. I don't say that lightly, but it is true.

[Nathan89]

It's another thing like eugenics where it could in theory be a good thing but can't be implemented without some bullshit prejudice being added to it. Like there are obviously people who do game the system, and finding a way to prevent them from doing that would be a great thing. Just has too many costs that some folks don't give a shit about because it doesn't affect them or people who look like them.

No point in talking about whether Trump can do this -- he can't. But it would be nice if we could have a legit discussion on how we handle citizenship and immigration. I think the current policies are open for changing if they can get a good plan together. But they can't, so they're not.

Today I learned most countries are exercising practices that are basically "eugenics".

[Nathan89]

There are people who shouldn't have kids. I don't say that lightly, but it is true.

This is true but not incentivizing illegals is a far cry from eugenics.

[AaronY]

https://pbs-h2.twimg.com/media/C8I_A1wUAAEHXSr.jpg

[Nathan89]

The Dems plan of massive welfare state and weak immigration laws(part of which is birthright) will end this country.

[spurraider21]

The Dems plan of massive welfare state and weak immigration laws(part of which is birthright) will end this country.
:lmao

[spurraider21]

in other words:

https://media.giphy.com/media/bKSFPYVp3iJPO/giphy.gif

[MultiTroll]

Feds Raid 'Maternity Hotels' Where Tourists Paid Up to $80K to Give Birth in U.S.
https://www.newsweek.com/feds-raid-maternity-hotels-birth-tourists-777643


Chinese birth tourism: pregnant women in California’s ‘maternity hotels’ given voice in empowering novel

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2161706/chinese-birth-tourism-pregnant-women-californias

[MultiTroll]

This is the kind of chit the snowflakers in this thread are supporting and pushing.

Birth tourism brings Russian baby boom to Miami

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

[spurraider21]

constitution bad now

[AaronY]

https://pbs-h2.twimg.com/media/C8I_A1wUAAEHXSr.jpg


https://pbs-h2.twimg.com/media/C8I_A1wUAAEHXSr.jpg

[MultiTroll]

constitution bad now
Free your mind (and the rest will follow)

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/09/17/what-franklin-thought-of-the-constitution/

[spurraider21]

Free your mind (and the rest will follow)

https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2010/09/17/what-franklin-thought-of-the-constitution/
lol missing the point

you dont have to agree with 100% of what's in the constitution. i certainly don't.

but it is still the authority our government is bound by

[MultiTroll]

^ gee thanks Sherlock.
How about changing some of the outdated or flat bogus parts of it.
Instead of following it forever as if it's some perfect document.

Animal Farm. Pretty much exactly what politcians have become.

So Don wants to end the scam of tourist babies. And you oppose. :spin

[spurraider21]

^ gee thanks Sherlock.
How about changing some of the outdated or flat bogus parts of it.
Instead of following it forever as if it's some perfect document.

Animal Farm. Pretty much exactly what politcians have become.

So Don wants to end the scam of tourist babies. And you oppose. :spin


and that's why i said you'd need to amend the constitution

[Nathan89]

constitution bad now

I just want the issue to be talked about and the supreme Court can rule as they see fit.

[Chris]

Trump

[spurraider21]

I just want the issue to be talked about and the supreme Court can rule as they see fit.
activist judges good now

[Nathan89]

:lmao

Yes, the platform is completely illogical when combined with their position on illegals.

[Nathan89]

activist judges good now

They should rule on the issue based on their understanding of the law.

[spurraider21]

Yes, the platform is completely illogical when combined with their position on illegals.
:lmao "will end this country"

[spurraider21]

They should rule on the issue based on their understanding of the law.
From the US Constitution

"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."

[Chris]

All persons born from a citizen :tu

[Winehole23]

All persons born from a citizen :tuthat not what the 14th Amendment says. it was written the way it is on purpose.

[benefactor]

There are people who shouldn't have kids. I don't say that lightly, but it is true.
This I agree with.

[spurraider21]

All persons born from a citizen :tu
solly cholly, it's not in the constitution

From the US Constitution

"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."

[ElNono]

Nobody is saying you can’t change the constitution, or that some parts might not be outdated. What’s being said is that there’s a process for that which has a much higher bar than an Act of Congress or Executive Order. Rightly so, because rights granted by the Constitution are there to protect minorities from the mob of the majority.

It’s important that bar is kept very high, or the next liberal president might see fit to change the 2nd Amendment unilaterally, or the next orange fascist might want to decide which speech is permissible or not.

Now, this appears to be the typical troll job pre-election, tbh, IMO

[boutons_deux]

"rights granted by the Constitution are there to protect minorities from the mob of the majority."

USA now has minority rule, and it's getting worse.

[benefactor]

I've seen so many people on social media today who are fully convinced Trump can just send this to the courts and make it happen:lol

[Winehole23]

Trump creates chaos with his unstinting lies and bullshit. It's intentional.

[DMC]

constitution bad now


lol missing the point

you dont have to agree with 100% of what's in the constitution. i certainly don't.

but it is still the authority our government is bound by

https://www.picgifs.com/reaction-gifs/reaction-gifs/say-what/say-what33.gif

[Winehole23]

tell me, SpurTalkers, what kind of political leader deliberately creates chaos, instability and strife?

[Winehole23]

in what kind of democracy does the President refer to the armed forces as "my military"?

[Winehole23]

^ gee thanks Sherlock.
How about changing some of the outdated or flat bogus parts of it.
Instead of following it forever as if it's some perfect document.
so much for originalism, now the Constitution is a living document again.

[Chris]

in what kind of democracy does the President refer to the armed forces as "my military"?

Constitutional Republic

Are you upset Trump is taking responsibility for the military?

[ElNono]

Dear Leader doing Dear Leader things...

[ElNono]

in what kind of democracy does the President refer to the armed forces as "my military"?

Clearly this guy: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x3g4x/pentagon-wants-to-predict-anti-trump-protests-using-social-media-surveillance

[Winehole23]

Constitutional Republic

Are you upset Trump is taking responsibility for the military?No. I'm calling him a tinpot for claiming it's his.

It's the Armed Forces of the United States not the Armed Forces of POTUS. POTUS is an officer of the United States as are all those in the armed forces.

[Winehole23]

Clearly this guy: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x3g4x/pentagon-wants-to-predict-anti-trump-protests-using-social-media-surveillanceYep.

Cool article, thanks for the post.

[baseline bum]

Some posters here don't seem to notice Trump's pattern of "going overboard" on whatever topic he would like discussed. Of course, he can't do it - he'll be sued just like he is for just about every EO he puts out there (whether it's constitutional or not).

I thought you cared about the constitution son

[Chris]

No. I'm calling him a tinpot for claiming it's his.

It's the Armed Forces of the United States not the Armed Forces of POTUS. POTUS is an officer of the United States as are all those in the armed forces.

POTUS is commander-in-chief. It's Trump's military.

[Winehole23]

it's his to command while he is in office.

it's not his personal army, nor does it belong to him.

[Winehole23]

we traditionally maintain a distinction between the civil and the military power.

loose rhetoric like Trump's tends to erode it. domestic errands like sending the US Army to police the US border erodes it.

words matter. actions matter. the trend is unsettling.

[Chris]

Border security is a domestic errand?

[Winehole23]

traditionally, yes.

this is not comparable to Pancho Villa.

[Winehole23]

it's not even an emergency.

[Winehole23]

are you familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act?

[Nathan89]

:lmao "will end this country"

You're right the country will still exist but it will suck. Sorry for not being clear.

[Winehole23]

why will it suck?

too many Asians, or too many Hispanics?

[spurraider21]

https://www.picgifs.com/reaction-gifs/reaction-gifs/say-what/say-what33.gif
it's not surprising that you're having difficulty understanding.

we dont all have to like every single thing in the constitution. the government is still bound by it, and we expect them to follow it. we all appreciate stability.

for instance, i've been on record here stating that i'm not a fan of the electoral college. but if some president tried to scrap it in favor of a popular vote via executive order, i'd be completely against it

[Nathan89]

tell me, SpurTalkers, what kind of political leader deliberately creates chaos, instability and strife?

One that recognizes significant issues in the country.

[ElNono]

are you familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act?

Well, now now... don’t be bringing difficult words here...

[ElNono]

tell me, SpurTalkers, what kind of political leader deliberately creates chaos, instability and strife?


One that recognizes significant issues in the country.

Wut?

[Winehole23]

Well, now now... don’t be bringing difficult words here...Chris seems to think that Trump can order his military to do anything he pleases, even within US borders.

[baseline bum]

So can we deport Ivanka, Uday, and Qusay since Ivana wasn't a citizen at their birth, making them all anchor babies?

[ducks]

Harry Reid's 1993 claim that 'no sane country' would provide birthright citizenship fuels GOP immigration push

[ducks]

So can we deport Ivanka, Uday, and Qusay since Ivana wasn't a citizen at their birth, making them all anchor babies?

We can fix the law now and make it a sane country like Harry Reid wanted

[baseline bum]

We can fix the law now and make it a sane country like Harry Reid wanted

Anchor babies good now

[benefactor]

Harry Reid's 1993 claim that 'no sane country' would provide birthright citizenship fuels GOP immigration push
No one in this thread wants your opinion, fuck puddle

[ElNono]

Harry Reid's 1993 claim that 'no sane country' would provide birthright citizenship fuels GOP immigration push

Was that around the time Trump was a Democrat, tbh?

[Chris]

Chris seems to think that Trump can order his military to do anything he pleases, even within US borders.

Trump really got you by the cajones with that one.

[ducks]

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right?" Reid said. "Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services."

[ducks]

He continued: "Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense at country-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"

[ducks]

Build the fucking wall

[baseline bum]

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right?" Reid said. "Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that's a lot of services."

So the US is not a sane country? Why do you hate America?

[ducks]

"On substance, I believe President Trump is right on birthright citizenship — the 14th Amendment does not require it," wrote former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy. "I do not believe, however, that the president may change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been in effect for decades, by executive order, as he is reportedly contemplating."

[ducks]

So the US is not a sane country? Why do you hate America?

I just posted what Reid said

[baseline bum]

I just posted what Reid said

You seem to be endorsing it you America hating quack.

[ducks]

Stop making them auotomatic USA citizens from illegals would help stop people invading the USA
Coming legal is not invading

[ducks]

You seem to be endorsing it you America hating quack.

I am supporting America
Making it better

[baseline bum]

I am supporting America
Making it better

Deport Trump's three anchor babies.

[ducks]

When all other anchor babies out

[Chucho]

You seem to be endorsing it you America hating quack.

It's funny because his name is ducks.

[baseline bum]

When all other anchor babies out

Anchor babies good now. Harry Reid would be so disappointed in you.

[AaronY]

Build the fucking wall


"On substance, I believe President Trump is right on birthright citizenship — the 14th Amendment does not require it," wrote former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy. "I do not believe, however, that the president may change the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has been in effect for decades, by executive order, as he is reportedly contemplating."


I just posted what Reid said


Stop making them auotomatic USA citizens from illegals would help stop people invading the USA
Coming legal is not invading


I am supporting America
Making it better


Deport Trump's three anchor babies.
votingrepublican.jpeg

[boutons_deux]

Trump Strips Citizenship from Children of Immigrants, Thus Disqualifying Himself from Presidency

WASHINGTON —Donald J. Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order stripping the children of immigrant mothers of their citizenship, thus disqualifying himself from being President of the United States.

The constitutional crisis came to light moments after the signing ceremony, when a fourth grader visiting the Oval Office on a school tour pointed out the far-reaching legal ramifications of the order.

“Hey, wait, wasn’t your mother from Scotland?” the student, Tracy Klugian, asked.

“That means you’re not a citizen and you can’t be President.”

Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to Trump and the author of the executive order, quickly grabbed the document from the Oval Office desk, panic spreading across his face as he reread it.

“Oh, my God,” Miller gasped. “What have I done?”

Trump immediately called Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for help in voiding the executive order,

but

Kavanaugh was unable to take the call because he was “sleeping off a rough night,”

an aide to the Justice said.

Asked to comment on Trump’s predicament, former President Barack Obama said,

“I can’t imagine what it would be like not to be an American citizen.

Of course, my mom was born here, so I’m good.”

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-strips-citizenship-from-children-of-immigrants-thus-disqualifying-himself-from-presidency (https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-strips-citizenship-from-children-of-immigrants-thus-disqualifying-himself-from-presidency)

[Winehole23]

Trump really got you by the cajones with that one.I don't think so. Unless DJT declares martial law, or war on Mexico, or has deployed the Army in drug interdiction, or to quell domestic violence, the US Army is legally limited as to what it can do.


A posse comitatus is defined as (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/posse%20comitatus) a group summoned by the local sheriff to keep the peace or enforce an opposed legal precept, but in this case the term refers to an act first passed (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1385)after the US Civil War that makes it illegal for the armed forces to be used to uphold domestic laws.


Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.



At its essence, the law reflects the American historical preference for stronger state governments and local authorities over centralized federal oversight and control. It was first created to “end the use of federal troops to police state elections in former Confederate states,” as the Rand Corporation, the military think tank, explains (https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1251/MR1251.AppD.pdf).https://qz.com/1442757/what-does-posse-comitatus-mean-and-trump-could-suspend-it/

The Insurrection Act of 1807 would also seem to limit what the president can order the army to do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act), but I guess when it comes right down to it, if Trump wants to be a dick he can create a huge mess before anyone can stop him.

The War on Terror may also give DJT colorable grounds to use the US Army to enforce laws, perhaps that was why ISIS tag-alongs were mentioned.

​

[ducks]

Anchor babies good now. Harry Reid would be so disappointed in you.

Did not say they were I said get rid of the others then trumps
Anchor babies

[baseline bum]

Did not say they were I said get rid of the others then trumps
Anchor babies

Special exemptions for anchor babies. Harry Reid is rolling in his grave.

[Nbadan]

Creative...

https://twitter.com/Profepps/status/1057286392244514816

[DMC]

it's not surprising that you're having difficulty understanding.

we dont all have to like every single thing in the constitution. the government is still bound by it, and we expect them to follow it. we all appreciate stability.

for instance, i've been on record here stating that i'm not a fan of the electoral college. but if some president tried to scrap it in favor of a popular vote via executive order, i'd be completely against it

It's your strawman, you fight it.

[boutons_deux]

are you familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act?

It's election week racist/xenophobia campaign tactic, because the caravan, on foot, is still 100s of miles away

His EO bullshit to repeal 14th Amendment birthright citizenship is also an election week racist/xenophobia campaign tactic

His middle class tax cut while Congress isn't in session? :lol

Trash is a standard Repug, not anomalous, using HATE and FEAR and LIES on voters.

[spurraider21]

It's your strawman, you fight it.
You’re making no sense.

[Winehole23]

just gonna throw this out there, since DJT tweeted about it this morning. it's from the Wong Kim Ark decision.






https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dq2MAv9UwAEUcf6.jpg

[Pavlov]

Well, he certainly gets some of you going. Where above do I compare him to anyone else?:lol you aren't admitting he lies all the time.

[spurraider21]

:lmao trump trying to discuss constitutional law...

subject to the jurisdiction thereof basically means they're subject to US law. the main exceptions would be native americans on reservations, or foreign nationals with diplomatic immunity. SCOTUS in that ruling also pointed out people in hostile occupation. none of these remotely apply to children of illegal immigrants.

[Winehole23]

relevant Congressional debate here:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

[Chris]

subject to the jurisdiction thereof basically means they're subject to US law.

Thanks for clearing that up. As a non-lawyer I was confused about that one. So nice to have an expert handy on the forum.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think so. Unless DJT declares martial law, or war on Mexico, or has deployed the Army in drug interdiction, or to quell domestic violence, the US Army is legally limited as to what it can do.

https://qz.com/1442757/what-does-posse-comitatus-mean-and-trump-could-suspend-it/

The Insurrection Act of 1807 would also seem to limit what the president can order the army to do (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act), but I guess when it comes right down to it, if Trump wants to be a dick he can create a huge mess before anyone can stop him.

The War on Terror may also give DJT colorable grounds to use the US Army to enforce laws, perhaps that was why ISIS tag-alongs were mentioned.

​

There is extensive precedent for using the Army to protect the border.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Matthews_op22.pdf

[spurraider21]

Thanks for clearing that up. As a non-lawyer I was confused about that one. So nice to have an expert handy on the forum.
if the child of an illegal immigrant commits a crime, does the government have the right to arrest them and press charges? if the child of an illegal immigrant steals money or assaults someone, can they be sued by the victim?

[Winehole23]

There is extensive precedent for using the Army to protect the border.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/Matthews_op22.pdfnot denied.

do you think this is a situation that calls for the deployment of the US Army?

[CosmicCowboy]

not denied.

do you think this is a situation that calls for the deployment of the US Army?

I think it is probably going to end badly with some ugly visuals.
The caravan will put women, kids, old people etc. up front and photographers will be breathlessly documenting these awful soldiers brutalizing these poor helpless immigrants.

[spurraider21]

I think it is probably going to end badly with some ugly visuals.
The caravan will put women, kids, old people etc. up front and photographers will be breathless documenting these awful soldiers brutalizing these poor helpless immigrants.
non-answer tbh

he didnt ask about the optics

[CosmicCowboy]

non-answer tbh

he didnt ask about the optics

pfft.

The army will not be able to stop anything. Their orders will be to avoid physical engagement at all costs. The caravan will be able to walk right through them and tag home base.

[Winehole23]

thanks for admitting this has nothing to do with border protection

[CosmicCowboy]

thanks for admitting this has nothing to do with border protection

I wasn't defending it, just providing historical precedent of the military being used on the border. From a political perspective pre-election it probably rallied Trumps hardcore base and the election will be over when we finally have to deal with the caravan.

[Winehole23]

Yep.

Trump is deploying thousands of US Army troops as an electoral prop, to exaggerate a negligible threat to the US.

[DMC]

You’re making no sense.

Who said the entire Constitution was bad? You're the one that said Constitution bad now, which is the straw man argument for what's actually being said.. You're saying you don't agree with parts of it but somehow that's different than someone else not agreeing with parts of it. Do you understand now Philo?

[Aztecfan03]

tell me, SpurTalkers, what kind of political leader deliberately creates chaos, instability and strife?

When did this become about Obama?

[DMC]

Yep.

Trump is deploying thousands of US Army troops as an electoral prop, to exaggerate a negligible threat to the US.

What an idiot. All he has to do is lob a couple missiles into some aspirin factory in Africa.

[Winehole23]

lol

[spurraider21]

Who said the entire Constitution was bad? You're the one that said Constitution bad now, which is the straw man argument for what's actually being said.. You're saying you don't agree with parts of it but somehow that's different than someone else not agreeing with parts of it. Do you understand now Philo?
yeah so this comes down to you misunderstanding "constitution bad now" and then making an ass of yourself because of it

i could have been more specific and said "abiding by the constitution bad now" but didn't think anybody would need that context. i was wrong.

[Winehole23]

What an idiot. All he has to do is lob a couple missiles into some aspirin factory in Africa.I complained about that, too.

[boutons_deux]

Birthright Bullshit

https://assets.rbl.ms/18787852/origin.gif

[DMC]

yeah so this comes down to you misunderstanding "constitution bad now" and then making an ass of yourself because of it

i could have been more specific and said "abiding by the constitution bad now" but didn't think anybody would need that context. i was wrong.

As a lawyer, you know full well that wording means everything. Dos equis sequitur parabellum veritas.

[ducks]

Special exemptions for anchor babies. Harry Reid is rolling in his grave.

Kick them all out i send

[koriwhat]

a long time coming... the whole anchor baby shit is dumb to begin with.

[baseline bum]

Kick them all out i send

You said wait until all the rest are gone before kicking out Trump's anchor babies, which means not kicking them out since there is no way to get 100% of them.

[spurraider21]

As a lawyer, you know full well that wording means everything. Dos equis sequitur parabellum veritas.
the context was obvious to everybody besides pedants

[DMC]

the context was obvious to everybody besides pedants

So you've taken a poll? Or perhaps the laws of statistics cease to exist in your argument! Are these magic statistics? Are you sure it's obvious to EVERYONE? ARE YOU SURE????


I'm done with this one.

[Blake]

Lol dmc rant

[spurraider21]

Lol dmc rant
he's doing a My Cousin Vinny thingy

i approve tbh

[Th'Pusher]

he's doing a My Cousin Vinny thingy

i approve tbh

He dissembles when you catch him being pedantic.

Anybody who spends as much time in the political forum who takes [something itt] bad now literally is an intractable pedant.

Stranger’s words matter on an obscure small market NBA team’s political forum counselor!

[Nathan89]

Asking for universal basic income because automation is taking our jobs and pushing for the continuance of birthright citizenship. Completely illogical.

[Isitjustme?]

Asking for universal basic income because automation is taking our jobs and pushing for the continuance of birthright citizenship. Completely illogical.

thats a pretty cool argument..where'd you copy and paste that from?

[Blake]

Asking for universal basic income because automation is taking our jobs and pushing for the continuance of birthright citizenship. Completely illogical.

Who's asking for universal basic income? You?

[Will Hunting]

Who's asking for universal basic income? You?
He was a Bernie supporter so maybe :lol

[AaronY]

He was a Bernie supporter so maybe :lol
Bernie to Trump :lmao never gets old

[AaronY]

He was gonna go for Bernie..


..then he decided to go for Trump instead

lololol

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/728352087495585792

:lol She would've known. they were best pals back in the day.

[Will Hunting]

He was gonna go for Bernie..


..then he decided to go for Trump instead

lololol
:lmao

[TSA]

:lmao trump trying to discuss constitutional law...

subject to the jurisdiction thereof basically means they're subject to US law. the main exceptions would be native americans on reservations, or foreign nationals with diplomatic immunity. SCOTUS in that ruling also pointed out people in hostile occupation. none of these remotely apply to children of illegal immigrants.

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a constitutional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Constitution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

Mr. Trump is correct, then, that doing away with birthright citizenship wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment. But what about statutes enacted by Congress? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives lawmakers the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Congress has expanded the categories of people entitled to citizenship at birth. The relevant statute lists eight categories, for instance granting citizenship to babies born in unincorporated U.S. territories to at least one American parent. This applied to the late Sen. John McCain, who was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. Concerning the question at issue here, though, the law is clear but not explicatory, borrowing the 14th Amendment’s language: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

With this judicial and legislative lack of clarity, an executive order is perfectly proper, perhaps even necessary, to instruct executive-branch officials and agencies not to confer birthright citizenship except when Congress or the Supreme Court has mandated it. To say that an executive order is necessary and proper, though, does not mean it fully settles the matter. The issue of birthright citizenship should be part of a larger legislative package focused on strengthening the U.S., its security and its economy.

Few developed nations—and none of the countries of Europe, which many Americans want to emulate—practice the rule of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” More common is jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” by which a child’s citizenship determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.

After first securing the nation’s safety, America’s immigration policy should be an extension of America’s liberating first principles. That means it should be based on the consent of the governed and the rule of law, and a deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation. Birthright citizenship does not meet this rubric. It ignores the principle of consent annunciated in the Declaration of Independence, undermines the rule of law established in the Constitution, and belittles the idea of citizenship and naturalization—the source of America’s uniquely successful immigration story.

Congress can thank Mr. Trump for getting the country to look at the Constitution again. Then it can do its constitutional duty and legislate so America can get back to the noble task of making citizens.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-1541025425

[Pavlov]

TSA also going full nativist as ordered.

[TSA]

TSA also going full nativist as ordered.

Just presenting a differing view from the meaning put forth in the Constitution. Excellent rebuttal by the way.

[Pavlov]

Just presenting a differing view from the meaning put forth in the Constitution. Excellent rebuttal by the way.What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign documents stating their allegiances upon birth?

[Blake]

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a constitutional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Constitution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

Mr. Trump is correct, then, that doing away with birthright citizenship wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment. But what about statutes enacted by Congress? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives lawmakers the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Congress has expanded the categories of people entitled to citizenship at birth. The relevant statute lists eight categories, for instance granting citizenship to babies born in unincorporated U.S. territories to at least one American parent. This applied to the late Sen. John McCain, who was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. Concerning the question at issue here, though, the law is clear but not explicatory, borrowing the 14th Amendment’s language: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

With this judicial and legislative lack of clarity, an executive order is perfectly proper, perhaps even necessary, to instruct executive-branch officials and agencies not to confer birthright citizenship except when Congress or the Supreme Court has mandated it. To say that an executive order is necessary and proper, though, does not mean it fully settles the matter. The issue of birthright citizenship should be part of a larger legislative package focused on strengthening the U.S., its security and its economy.

Few developed nations—and none of the countries of Europe, which many Americans want to emulate—practice the rule of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” More common is jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” by which a child’s citizenship determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.

After first securing the nation’s safety, America’s immigration policy should be an extension of America’s liberating first principles. That means it should be based on the consent of the governed and the rule of law, and a deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation. Birthright citizenship does not meet this rubric. It ignores the principle of consent annunciated in the Declaration of Independence, undermines the rule of law established in the Constitution, and belittles the idea of citizenship and naturalization—the source of America’s uniquely successful immigration story.

Congress can thank Mr. Trump for getting the country to look at the Constitution again. Then it can do its constitutional duty and legislate so America can get back to the noble task of making citizens.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-1541025425

Lol Matthew Spalding

He sounds like a southern Baptist preacher trying to justify the old testament

[TSA]

What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign documents stating their allegiances upon birth?

There’s an obvious lack of clarity.

“Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.”

Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?

[Pavlov]

There’s an obvious lack of clarity.

“Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.”

Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?Just going by your op-ed

According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Questions pending:

What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign documents stating their allegiances upon birth?

This is the legal argument you have to make to have the courts rule on this.

[spurraider21]

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a constitutional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Constitution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

Mr. Trump is correct, then, that doing away with birthright citizenship wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment. But what about statutes enacted by Congress? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives lawmakers the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Congress has expanded the categories of people entitled to citizenship at birth. The relevant statute lists eight categories, for instance granting citizenship to babies born in unincorporated U.S. territories to at least one American parent. This applied to the late Sen. John McCain, who was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. Concerning the question at issue here, though, the law is clear but not explicatory, borrowing the 14th Amendment’s language: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

With this judicial and legislative lack of clarity, an executive order is perfectly proper, perhaps even necessary, to instruct executive-branch officials and agencies not to confer birthright citizenship except when Congress or the Supreme Court has mandated it. To say that an executive order is necessary and proper, though, does not mean it fully settles the matter. The issue of birthright citizenship should be part of a larger legislative package focused on strengthening the U.S., its security and its economy.

Few developed nations—and none of the countries of Europe, which many Americans want to emulate—practice the rule of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” More common is jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” by which a child’s citizenship determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.

After first securing the nation’s safety, America’s immigration policy should be an extension of America’s liberating first principles. That means it should be based on the consent of the governed and the rule of law, and a deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation. Birthright citizenship does not meet this rubric. It ignores the principle of consent annunciated in the Declaration of Independence, undermines the rule of law established in the Constitution, and belittles the idea of citizenship and naturalization—the source of America’s uniquely successful immigration story.

Congress can thank Mr. Trump for getting the country to look at the Constitution again. Then it can do its constitutional duty and legislate so America can get back to the noble task of making citizens.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-1541025425

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649/) (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used.

He further noted that it was impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Id. at 687.

Justice Gray concluded that [e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. Id. at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202

[TSA]

Just going by your op-ed

According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

Questions pending:

What allegiances do infants born in the US owe to other countries, TSA?

Who determines that allegiance?

Do they sign documents stating their allegiances upon birth?

This is the legal argument you have to make to have the courts rule on this.”This [citizenship guarantee] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” -Senator Jacob Howard

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” - Senator Jacob Howard

“Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” - Senator Reverdy Johnson

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” - Representative John Bingham “the father of the 14th”



Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS?
Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?

[spurraider21]

those were debates held at the time. winehole even posted the link to transcripts on page 1. Jacob Howard was one one extreme. There was plenty of disagreement, and yet they didnt choose to amend the language to make those purported exclusions clear

[TSA]

those were debates held at the time. winehole even posted the link to transcripts on page 1. Jacob Howard was one one extreme. There was plenty of disagreement, and yet they didnt choose to amend the language to make those purported exclusions clear

And that’s exactly why congress should pass legislation making it clear or the SCOTUS can make it clear. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that.

[spurraider21]

And that’s exactly why congress should pass legislation making it clear or the SCOTUS can make it clear. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that.
no you cant change constitutional interpretation via statute. you can change statutory interpretation by amending or replacing a statute. that's different.

and see post 169 re: SCOTUS

[Pavlov]

”This [citizenship guarantee] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” -Senator Jacob Howard

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” - Senator Jacob Howard

“Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” - Senator Reverdy Johnson

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” - Representative John Bingham “the father of the 14th”Too bad they didn't put that actual language in the amendment.




Why are you against birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens being ruled upon by the SCOTUS? Never said I was. I am fine with it.

You lie.

You always lie.

Why are you against congress passing legislation that clarifies birthright citizenship to babies born to illegal aliens?they are free to introduce amendments at any time. I am not against that.

You always lie.

Always.

Why do you always lie, TSA?

Please answer for once.

[Pavlov]

And that’s exactly why congress should pass legislation making it clear or the SCOTUS can make it clear. I’m not sure why anyone would be against that.Because that's not how congress works.

Why you keep lying about SCOTUS is your problem.

[TSA]

no you cant change constitutional interpretation via statute. you can change statutory interpretation by amending or replacing a statute. that's different.

and see post 169 re: SCOTUS

It needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS or amended by congress. Trump bringing up an EO will force the issue.

[TSA]

Too bad they didn't put that actual language in the amendment.



Never said I was. I am fine with it.

You lie.

You always lie.
they are free to introduce amendments at any time. I am not against that.

You always lie.

Always.

Why do you always lie, TSA?

Please answer for once.

I don’t lie. I may have misunderstood your stance.

Do you want the SCOTUS to take up birthright citizenship? Yes or no.

[spurraider21]

It needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS or amended by congress. Trump bringing up an EO will force the issue.
It has been clarified. See post 169.

the supreme court said "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful"

I would say "no need for an executive order" but it would be completely improper/illegal to use an executive order to adjust constitutional interpretation to begin with.

[Pavlov]

I don’t lie. I may have misunderstood your stance.

Do you want the SCOTUS to take up birthright citizenship? Yes or no.If it comes up in an actual case, sure. Not sure it even gets that far.

[Spurs Homer]

In response, Democrats and Republicans alike have raised the banner of the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” They claim this means anyone born in the U.S. has a constitutional right to citizenship. But a closer look at the language and history shows this is not the Constitution’s mandate and should never have become national policy.

The crucial phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As originally understood when Congress proposed the amendment in 1866, that referred not merely to the obligation of following U.S. laws but also, and more important, to full political allegiance. According to Lyman Trumbull—who was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a co-author of the 14th Amendment—being “subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

That reading is supported by the 1866 Civil Rights Act, also written by Trumbull, which Congress passed over President Andrew Johnson’s veto before proposing the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court endorsed this reading in the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).

Even when the justices expanded the constitutional mandate U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the decision cited as establishing birthright citizenship, they held only that the children of legal permanent residents were automatically citizens. The high court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of aliens in the country illegally.

Mr. Trump is correct, then, that doing away with birthright citizenship wouldn’t require a constitutional amendment. But what about statutes enacted by Congress? Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives lawmakers the power “to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Congress has expanded the categories of people entitled to citizenship at birth. The relevant statute lists eight categories, for instance granting citizenship to babies born in unincorporated U.S. territories to at least one American parent. This applied to the late Sen. John McCain, who was born on a U.S. naval base in the Panama Canal Zone. Concerning the question at issue here, though, the law is clear but not explicatory, borrowing the 14th Amendment’s language: “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

With this judicial and legislative lack of clarity, an executive order is perfectly proper, perhaps even necessary, to instruct executive-branch officials and agencies not to confer birthright citizenship except when Congress or the Supreme Court has mandated it. To say that an executive order is necessary and proper, though, does not mean it fully settles the matter. The issue of birthright citizenship should be part of a larger legislative package focused on strengthening the U.S., its security and its economy.

Few developed nations—and none of the countries of Europe, which many Americans want to emulate—practice the rule of jus soli, or “right of the soil.” More common is jus sanguinis, “right of blood,” by which a child’s citizenship determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.

After first securing the nation’s safety, America’s immigration policy should be an extension of America’s liberating first principles. That means it should be based on the consent of the governed and the rule of law, and a deliberate and self-confident policy of patriotic assimilation. Birthright citizenship does not meet this rubric. It ignores the principle of consent annunciated in the Declaration of Independence, undermines the rule of law established in the Constitution, and belittles the idea of citizenship and naturalization—the source of America’s uniquely successful immigration story.

Congress can thank Mr. Trump for getting the country to look at the Constitution again. Then it can do its constitutional duty and legislate so America can get back to the noble task of making citizens.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-1541025425

So much for the right wing "interpret the constitution as written" part of their propaganda!

:lol

[boutons_deux]

So much for the right wing "interpret the constitution as written" part of their propaganda!

:lol

the SCOTUS whores are hard care originalists, textualists, Constitution as dead document, only when it suits their extreme right-wing politics.

they abandon all that when necessary to rule for extreme right wing politics.

iow, they don't give a shit about the Constitution, only care about ruling politically for hard right wing conservatism.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's going to be interesting. Trump does the executive order. Obviously it immediately gets challenged in court. Fast track to the supreme court. Hmmmm.

[Millennial_Messiah]

It's going to be interesting. Trump does the executive order. Obviously it immediately gets challenged in court. Fast track to the supreme court. Hmmmm.

That's one Kennedy would have quite possibly overturned but Kavanaugh won't.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included originally for a reason and how the court interprets it will decide which way they go. Until the 60s it had always been interpreted to exclude illegal aliens.

[Pavlov]

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included originally for a reasonWhat reason was that?

They could've just said something more like "no illegal aliens."

It is great how all you folk who say you don't like Trump adopt every single position he ever takes.

[CosmicCowboy]

What reason was that?

They could've just said something more like "no illegal aliens."

It is great how all you folk who say you don't like Trump adopt every single position he ever takes.

Supporting legal immigration and reform of our dysfunctional immigration system is not just a Trump issue, fuckwad.

[Pavlov]

Supporting legal immigration and reform of our immigration system is not just a Trump issue, fuckwad.Lots of people want those things, but you adopted Trump's 14th amendment opinion when he told you to.


:lol "fuckwad"

[FrostKing]

What a loser. Cares for his citizenship. Cares for his grandchildren. Terrible person

[FrostKing]

Lots of people want those things, but you adopted Trump's 14th amendment opinion when he told you to.


:lol "fuckwad"

https://youtu.be/KllQ8e9Ae0w

[ElNono]

There’s an obvious lack of clarity.

There really is not. Especially in light of SCOTUS precedent on the matter.

[ElNono]

It needs to be clarified by the SCOTUS or amended by congress. Trump bringing up an EO will force the issue.

As Spursraider has mentioned, that point has been already clarified by the SCOTUS. What Executive is looking for is changing that clarification, IOW, the statute itself. That should require a Constitutional amendment.

[ElNono]

This is like re-litigating Heller in a loop until the outcome is 2nd Amendment bad. It's simply wishful thinking, barring a Constitutional Amendment.

But you do have to give Trump credit, he know how to play to the emotions of idiots and the ignorant.

[baseline bum]

What a loser. Cares for his citizenship. Cares for his grandchildren. Terrible person

Doesn't care his kids are also anchor babies

[boutons_deux]

We have already seen that the oligarchy's SCOTUS whores respect no stare decisis (C-U), will not be bound by precedents, in ruling in favor of the oligarchy.

With K, the right-wing-politician-packed SCOTUS is now a total farce.

The entire Federal judiciary is being packed with extreme-right-wing-politicians-in-robes as the oligarchy intensifies its coup d'etat.

The oligarchy has realized that winning in court before its very own unelected judges for life is much more efficient, reliable than messy, unreliable legislation.

If Trash's 14th Amendment campaign stunt continues after the election and up to SCOTUS, I expect he'll win 5-4.

[Winehole23]

Doesn't care his kids are also anchor babiesdoesn't count, they're white.

we call those native born citizens.

[spurraider21]

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was included originally for a reason and how the court interprets it will decide which way they go. Until the 60s it had always been interpreted to exclude illegal aliens.
subject to the jurisdiction thereof means subject to the laws of the US. it excluded people like diplomats (diplomitic immunity), foreigners born under hostile occupation, and at the time, native americans born on reservations (as they were treated as quasi foreign countries)

[Chucho]

doesn't count, they're white.

we call those native born citizens.


Would be hilarious if Nathan was a filthy mick or a dirty Eastern Euro trash descendant- one of the inferior white nationalities that were second class white folk when they immigrated here. I'd bet dollars to pesos Nathan doesn't have a full, if any, handle on his ancestry.

[Winehole23]

claims some Hispanic ancestry, says he's "officially" non-white. perhaps he's a Sephardic Jew.

[Chucho]

claims some Hispanic ancestry, says he's "officially" non-white. perhaps he's a Sephardic Jew.

But is soooo pro-white. Makes no sense.

[Winehole23]

But is soooo pro-white. Makes no sense.Reminds me of talking to the Objectivists on the West Mall at UT back in the 1980s. there was a non-white guy -- he was pretty much the main guy at the table, day after day -- who had had a big burr in his saddle about anti-racism. It offended his sense of individuality.

There are also a lot of people who think the declaration of the end of legal segregation effectively abolished racism and removed any grounds for complaining about racism. Nathan seems like one of these guys who thinks that anti-racism is the only extant form of racism.

Ergo, anyone who complains about racism besides white people, is a charlatan ipso facto.

[FrostKing]

Doesn't care his kids are also anchor babies
Lol. He's a citizen.

You're better than this

[FrostKing]

https://i.imgur.com/1rfB3mm.png

[baseline bum]

Lol. He's a citizen.

You're better than this

Ivana wasn't

[Winehole23]

Melania's parents represent CHAIN MIGRATION

[spurraider21]

It's going to be interesting. Trump does the executive order. Obviously it immediately gets challenged in court. Fast track to the supreme court. Hmmmm.
and hope for conservative activist judges?

[boutons_deux]

and hope for conservative activist judges?

hope? hell no, solid 5-4 win from hard-right activist SCOTUS whores.

[FrostKing]

Melania's parents represent CHAIN MIGRATION
Haha. This is accurate

[FrostKing]

Ivana wasn't
Melania has a College degree. We are heading back to Europe, tired of cheeseburger cola

[Nathan89]

"In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.

The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent)."

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-I...ive-Households

How much welfare are Melania's parents taking in? Chain migration is a problem. Her parents aren't really an example that highlights the problem of it though.

[Reck]

Melania has a College degree. We are heading back to Europe, tired of cheeseburger cola

Was that before or after she sucked a half dozen cocks to be on magazine covers?

[spurraider21]

Melania has a College degree. We are heading back to Europe, tired of cheeseburger cola
my wife has a college degree and is going to start medical school in august. she still had to get her permanent residency through chain migration (marriage).

[spurraider21]

Whatever happened to "we're not against LEGAL immigration... we just don't like ILLEGAL immigration."

now on a constant crusade to further and further restrict legal immigration

[boutons_deux]

a constant crusade to further and further restrict legal immigration

Steven Miller on the job

American R & D, medical, scientific, physics, materials, etc will be screwed, and Kavanaugh frat rat bros can't take up the slack

[FrostKing]

You aren't even Immigrants haha. Probably don't have family that would like to immigrate

[Chris]

1058326190669357056

[Pavlov]

1058326190669357056SCOTUS already ruled.

[baseline bum]

Melania has a College degree. We are heading back to Europe, tired of cheeseburger cola

Melania is the mother only to Barron. She actually was a citizen when he was born so he's not an anchor baby.

[spurraider21]

1058326190669357056
pre-born anchor babies can be aborted too :tu

[baseline bum]

pre-born anchor babies can be aborted too :tu

Judge RapeK disagreed

[Chris]

pre-born anchor babies can be aborted too :tu

Not for long :tu

[spurraider21]

Not for long :tu
activist judges good now

[Chris]

activist judges good now

Judges who rule just to spite Trump aren't in the same category.

[spurraider21]

Judges who rule just to spite Trump aren't in the same category.
your attempted rationalization aside, activist judges good now :tu

[Winehole23]

"In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households. Welfare in this study includes Medicaid and cash, food, and housing programs.

Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and well-established immigrants. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.

Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.

The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.

In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent)."

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-I...ive-Households

How much welfare are Melania's parents taking in? Chain migration is a problem. Her parents aren't really an example that highlights the problem of it though.CIS has a rep for bad research and ideological bias.

Longtime favorite prop for hardcore SpursTalk racialists and xenophobes.

[boutons_deux]

"Reports published by CIS have been disputed

by scholars on immigration,

fact-checkers such as PolitiFact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com), FactCheck.Org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck.org), Washington Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post), Snopes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com), CNN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN) and NBC News (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC_News),

and immigration-research organizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

CIS is just another white nationalist/nativist stink tank, spun off from xenophobic white nationalist FAIR, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_for_American_Immigration_Reform),[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies#cite_note-:15-6)

[Nathan89]

CIS has a rep for bad research and ideological bias.

Longtime favorite prop for hardcore SpursTalk racialists and xenophobes.

Link to the good research?

[Winehole23]

Circuit court split on birthright citizenship in US Territories:

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1205213410415304710?s=19

[Winehole23]

Link to the good research?Pew Research is deep and wide on this. I'm sure someone so interested on the topic as you can find sources that don't tailor their stats to political ideology.

[benefactor]

Here he goes again:lol
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/trump-promises-violate-14th-amendment-193116065.html

[MultiTroll]

Should have been passed 100 years ago.

Mass abuses go on daily and
:cry muh constitution :cry

[Blake]

Make America White Again

[FrostKing]

Make America White Again
Are you accusing ethnics of anchor baby scam?

[MultiTroll]

Make America White Again
Make China Great.

Fly over at 8 months pregnant.
Have baby at US Hospital. Have the entire fucking bill paid by social services.
Kid is now US citizen.
Free schools, etc.
Get a degree.
Send profits from your well paying job back to Chinkville. Or for that matter move back to Chinkville with your US degree.

Funded entirely by you dupes.

[MultiTroll]

Feds Raid 'Maternity Hotels' Where Tourists Paid Up to $80K to Give Birth in U.S.
https://www.newsweek.com/feds-raid-maternity-hotels-birth-tourists-777643


Chinese birth tourism: pregnant women in California’s ‘maternity hotels’ given voice in empowering novel

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/long-reads/article/2161706/chinese-birth-tourism-pregnant-women-californias

[ChumpDumper]

Make China Great.

Fly over at 8 months pregnant.
Have baby at US Hospital. Have the entire fucking bill paid by social services.
Kid is now US citizen.
Free schools, etc.
Get a degree.
Send profits from your well paying job back to Chinkville. Or for that matter move back to Chinkville with your US degree.

Funded entirely by you dupes.

What social services?

Walk us through how that works.

[MultiTroll]

Hey that's racist Fabbs :cry

No it isn't. The Commies are on the fleece train too.

This is the kind of chit the snowflakers in this thread are supporting and pushing.

Birth tourism brings Russian baby boom to Miami

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

[MultiTroll]

What social services?

Walk us through how that works.
Read the article Numb Nutts.

[ChumpDumper]

Read the article Numb Nutts.

Nah, you'll post it. You're on a roll.

[Blake]

Are you accusing ethnics of anchor baby scam?

No

[Blake]

Whoa, a hundred rich Russians a year are coming to Miami to have kids?

[Blake]

Make China Great.

Fly over at 8 months pregnant.
Have baby at US Hospital. Have the entire fucking bill paid by social services.
Kid is now US citizen.
Free schools, etc.
Get a degree.
Send profits from your well paying job back to Chinkville. Or for that matter move back to Chinkville with your US degree.

Funded entirely by you dupes.

Hey a Chinese straw man. That may be a first here

[MultiTroll]

:lol Ding.
Poodle #2 comes in with fluff.

[Blake]

:lol Ding.
Poodle #2 comes in with fluff.

Your straw man is packed with fluff. Made in China.

[ChumpDumper]

Flabbs folds.

[MultiTroll]

Flabbs folds.
:lol You're so pathetic it's humorous.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol You're so pathetic it's humorous.

Didn't see anything about social services in the article about the Chinese. I certainly may have missed it rushing through.

Maybe you can post that passage.