Page 1 of 10 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 246
  1. #1
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160
    https://www.axios.com/trump-birthrig...1fd72ea82.html
    Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order



    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 do entary 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional 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 cons utional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Cons utional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Cons ution 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 "uncons utional."

    Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undo ented 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 undo ented 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.

  2. #2
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160
    Hey rmt, tell me again how you wanted a president who would follow the cons ution.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.

  4. #4
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    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

  5. #5
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Supreme Court precedent here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

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

  6. #6
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Executive orders good now.

  7. #7
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    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.

  8. #8
    Watching the collapse benefactor's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Post Count
    40,683
    Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.
    No. This is just episode #765 of The Idiot Chronicles: Donald Trump Edition

  9. #9
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    Executive orders good now.
    They were bad only because the other party was holding power and the black president issued them.

  10. #10
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160
    Executive orders good now.
    Cons ution bad now

  11. #11
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160
    Trump can run it up the flagpole and see if SCOTUS salutes.

    But no, probably not.
    RapeK would consent

  12. #12
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.
    no would be immediately challenged, hit with an injunction, and is completely uncons utional tbh

  13. #13
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    RapeK would consent
    RapeyK wanted to imprison a refugee applicant until she was forced to out a kid. Of course he'd try to find a way to pwn the browns again.

  14. #14
    Rosebud CitizenDwayne's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Post Count
    2,772
    Repugs seem to be avoiding this thread. Can’t say I blame them

  15. #15
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    nm
    Last edited by Winehole23; 10-30-2018 at 01:18 PM.

  16. #16
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    RapeK would consent
    WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

  17. #17
    Believe. HWoodNixon's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    155
    Repugs seem to be avoiding this thread. Can’t say I blame them
    very true. Why aren’t republicans saying anything about this???

  18. #18
    Believe. MultiTroll's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    22,806
    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.

  19. #19
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,425
    if you don't like it, change the 14th Amendment

  20. #20
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,160

  21. #21
    Veteran LkrFan's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Post Count
    39,574
    Can this even be done through an EO? Not likely.
    He can't. He's lying to Chris and CosmicNutcase (his base).

  22. #22
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    76,235
    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

  23. #23
    coffee's for closers FrostKing's Avatar
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    17,535
    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?

  24. #24
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    ?

    No brainer change.

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

  25. #25
    coffee's for closers FrostKing's Avatar
    My Team
    Chicago Bulls
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    17,535
    neither. you'd need to amend the cons ution
    You defend anchor babies?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •