I love that no matter how radical or raw I try to make my lampoon of y'all, there is always some jackass like you or M_M to agree with it directly
DOJ to investigate state or local officials who obstruct immigration enforcement: memo
Trump DOJ wants federal prosecutors across the country to crackdown on officials who obstruct immigration enforcement
CNN poll
Majority want all illegals gone !
22nd will be a lot more difficult because that amendment is very specific like prohibition (18th/overturned with 21st) it's really the reason for the existence of the amendment not a sub part of it in the fine print. Would have to be ratified by 2/3 of combined congress and 3/4 of state legislatures which would never happen.
Agreeing with it, and believing it is a long shot to actually happen, are not mutually exclusiveI love that no matter how radical or raw I try to make my lampoon of y'all, there is always some jackass like you or M_M to agree with it directly
Teen Vogue with adult-level tips for mutual aid and protection among targeted communities
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ice-...s-how-to-start
Amen. It's so offered.
I don't do "lampoon."I love that no matter how radical or raw I try to make my lampoon of y'all, there is always some jackass like you or M_M to agree with it directly
Elie Mystal, brisk as ever
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/On its face, this order violates the 14th Amendment, the statutes that mirror the 14th Amendment, and the Administrative Procedures Act (which prohibits “arbitrary and capricious” laws and orders such as “don’t give birth while on a student visa or else”). I’d also argue that it could violate the Equal Protection Clause, because it focuses more on the status of the mother than on the father. And it could violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Cons ution if we’re in a situation where citizenship granted in a blue state is not recognized by red states.
But I wonder when the courts will get to a discussion of these issues on the merits. Because the government and Trump judges will likely begin by arguing that nobody even has standing to sue the administration over this cons utional violation. They’ll say that an immigrant who is not pregnant has no right to sue, nor does the out-of-status person who is expecting. They’ll say that states don’t have a right to sue, because they’re not “harmed” by the order. They’ll wait until an actual baby is born, and denied do entation, and then force that literal baby to sue.
In the meantime, the courts could allow a patently uncons utional order to go into effect and watch as the white-wing media desperately tries to normalize it. They could watch as Trump’s goons attempt to “enforce” the order as he puts families and their American-citizen children on trains and sends them to camps, waiting for just the “right” plaintiff to emerge.
Even if the courts do get around to “stopping” the order, Trump controls the military. He controls the State Department and the Justice Department. He controls the Social Security Administration. I don’t have a lot of belief that he will follow a court order on this, even if the courts order him to stop.
All I can do is tell you that the order is uncons utional, and racist, and obviously so. The people who support this order are wrong, and racist. The journalists who promote and normalize the order are wrong and racist. This order violates one of the fundamental principles of the United States, and people should react to it like it does.
Unfortunately, the order upholds another, perhaps even more fundamental principle that has always animated the American experiment: the idea that this country is for white people, and nobody else.
“(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the en lement of other individuals, including children of lawful permanent residents, to obtain do entation of their United States citizenship.”
If the “except for Elon Musk” part of this order weren’t obvious before, it should be now. Musk’s future kids can still get citizenship, Trump wants to make that very clear, for some reason.
According to my lawyer friend, it is a fundamental principle of statutory and cons utional construction that every clause must be given meaning, if at all possible. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must mean something, must qualify the otherwise-universal citizenship accorded to babies born here. But how?That will get sued and almost certainly overturned... I can't wait for the 7-2 decision against him to come out and him to whine about the RINO SCOTUS when only Alito and Thomas dissented, despite the fact that three out of four judges that voted with the liberal three were hand-selected by Trump and confirmed by a GOP majority.
Also....... breaking news guys, Spain is part of BRICS now.
Contrary to what you may read in low-information news sources, the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the child of an illegal alien is a citizen if born within our borders. The child of a legal resident, yes. So the question remains unresolved. As a policy matter, children of illegal aliens should not be citizens. But how, exactly, can “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be applied, when it would seem that everyone is subject to our laws?
That's a question for the U. S. Supreme Court, I suppose. Personally, I hope they decide it means that illegal aliens can’t, by breaking our laws, create new American citizens.
He sure did. He acknowledged he probably would be sued when he signed it. Twenty-two blue states have already sued to try to block implementation of this executive order. They have an interest in continuing to attract illegal aliens, and particularly pregnant illegal aliens, who contribute to their representation in Congress and also create enormous demand for welfare and other government services–a plus if you are a Democrat.
Again, this will land at the Supreme Court.
60/40 we'll lose, but it's the best that he could do. And he did it>>>immediately.
And I'd proudly endorse a Pelican Brief of every last "justice" who votes in favor of the birthright citizenship regardless of who appointed the "justice". Replace them all with hardliners like Alito and Thomas who will surely vote in favor of repealing birthright citizenship.
Native Americans, brainiac. Read the goddamn Congressional Globe, it's all spelled out there.
Subject to US law but not partaking of citizenship, we still needed to kill and remove Native Americans, there was no question of them being included in the 14th Amendment.
Yonivores are very gullible.
Lol "muh lawyer friend"
That Barrett girl will be our poison. She'll go Left and Roberts will follow her every ing time she does. Just have to hope and pray that she won't go completely Left and we can get (every other one) our way. Trump chose poorly with her and that GD CNN knew it on-the-spot. I remember they were upbeat about her at the time, and they turned out to be correct. He needed just one more ringer and didn't get it. in' shame.
Should I have said, I'm not a lawyer but I pretend to be one in Spurstalk? I just happened to rely on the opinion of a lawyer I trust.
The only relevant take from my relying on this particular attorney is that the U.S. Supreme Court has never held that the child of an illegal alien is a citizen if born within our borders. If you can find a cite that contradicts that statement, I'd be interested.
I believe this, and the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" will be the relevant questions before the court.
should have picked someone like Judge Jeanine who never wavers imo. Someone of that ilk I get it if she was too old.
I never trusted Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, she's socially woke and has some black/mixed race kids. Got to properly vet these people especially for the highest in' judicial position in the world. I don't care that "oh she's this devout anti abortion Catholic who will overturn Roe some day....". That means nothing to me. There are tons of Catholics including the pope who lean left on damn near every other issue except abortion. Tons of Woke Catholics like that lesbo idiot in DC from yesterday. If you're picking for the supreme court, especially if you're picking a female, you've got to get a hardline social conservative who is based on all the issues and would have the stones to overturn something like Loving v VA or the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s if they came up. Someone who goes further than being a Trump sycophant, who is loyal to the conservative populist nationalism movement to the bone.
"DEI hire"
"those black kids are su ious"
Yep.
Grim business.
wow
what caused y'all to turn against Amy Coney Barrett?
did she dare to think for herself or something?
The underlying misogyny seeping out is my guess. She should have never left the kitchen where she belongs.
Reality TV moves. This is Trump doing the Jake Paul/Mike Tyson thing by getting some re credit for trying, but knowing full well it's futile.
if his agencies ignore court orders, who will stop them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
