Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[Boiler 45,775]

Just now, Satisfied said:

Hopefully someone reports it.  Pretty sad for a visa website.

Amazing especially on a site like this how so many have an antipathy to other cultures.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

7 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Hopefully someone reports it.  Pretty sad for a visa website.

Seriously?  Clutching at straws....there are many countries around the world that end in -stan that aren't Islamic.

My point is in how Trump wants to run this country like those governments abroad.

Edited November 15, 2018 by JimandChristy

[Boiler 45,775]

1 minute ago, JimandChristy said:

Seriously?  Clutching at straws....there are many countries around the world that end in -stan that aren't Islamic.

OK

 

Name one.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

9 minutes ago, Boiler said:

OK

 

Name one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/07/yes-kazakhstan-should-change-its-name-this-map-shows-why/?utm_term=.edaf23c2a26a

 

Kazakhstan is an example of a ethnically diverse country that isn't just Muslim. There is *nothing* wrong with being Muslim BTW. The -stan comment is more based on the type of chokehold many politicians have on countries that often have that suffix. It's not a reflection on the people or their faith, but on the corruption of local politics that would favor Trump if we were to have it as well.

Edited November 15, 2018 by JimandChristy

[Boiler 45,775]

4 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/07/yes-kazakhstan-should-change-its-name-this-map-shows-why/?utm_term=.edaf23c2a26a

 

Kazakhstan is an example of a ethnically diverse country that isn't just Muslim. There is *nothing* wrong with being Muslim BTW. The -stan comment is more based on the type of chokehold many politicians have on countries that often have that suffix. It's not a reflection on the people or their faith, but on the corruption of local politics that would favor Trump if we were to have it as well.

According to the 2009 Census, 70% of the population is Muslim, 26% Christian, 0.1% Buddhist, 0.2% others (mostly Jewish), and 3% irreligious, while 0.5% chose not to answer

 

Kazakhstan's human rights situation is described as poor by independent observers. The 2015 Human Rights Watch report on Kazakhstan said that the country "heavily restricts freedom of assembly, speech, and religion. In 2014, authorities closed newspapers, jailed or fined dozens of people after peaceful but unsanctioned protests, and fined or detained worshipers for practicing religion outside state controls. 

 

Wiki

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

3 minutes ago, JimandChristy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/07/yes-kazakhstan-should-change-its-name-this-map-shows-why/?utm_term=.edaf23c2a26a

 

Kazakhstan is an example of a ethnically diverse country that isn't just Muslim. There is *nothing* wrong with being Muslim BTW. The -stan comment is more based on the type of chokehold many politicians have on countries that often have that suffix. It's not a reflection on the people or their faith, but on the corruption of local politics that would favor Trump if we were to have it as well.

Did you read the article you posted? It suggests changing the name based on investment prejudiced towards countries ending in Istan It's based on ethnicity not political leanings

 

73% Islamic is a pretty good indicator of a countries religious leaning. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/02/07/yes-kazakhstan-should-change-its-name-this-map-shows-why/?utm_term=.edaf23c2a26a

 

Kazakhstan is an example of a ethnically diverse country that isn't just Muslim. There is *nothing* wrong with being Muslim BTW. The -stan comment is more based on the type of chokehold many politicians have on countries that often have that suffix. It's not a reflection on the people or their faith, but on the corruption of local politics that would favor Trump if we were to have it as well.

Ever been to Kazakhstan?  I have.  Muslim.  

Nice try at backpedaling, though.  How’s that foot tasting right about now?  You should tweet Trump and tell him what you said!   

[Boiler 45,775]

BTW still open to one, just one stan.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

BTW still open to one, just one stan.

Don’t hold your breath.  I can see the ending already, and it isn’t what the image in a particular person’s mind thinks it will be...

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

10 minutes ago, Boiler said:

BTW still open to one, just one stan.

Mangostan. 10% Islam 90% MDL with the highest rate of TDS in the world 

[Boiler 45,775]

1 minute ago, Marty Byrde said:

Mangostan. 10% Islam 90% MDL with the highest rate of TDS in the world 

Naughty, I was not asking you.

 

Mango Ditch Left?

[Dashinka 24,655]

9 hours ago, Marty Byrde said:

Mangostan. 10% Islam 90% MDL with the highest rate of TDS in the world 

That is the best post of the week.  +1,000!

 

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 24,655]

12 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

While I agree in principal with limiting birthright citizenship in certain cases, it’s in the Constitution. How can an Executive Order change the Constitution? Wouldn’t the Constitution need to be amended? Can the Supreme Court make the change without going through the process to amend the Constitution? 

The issue is that  jus soli for illegal immigrants has never been put before the supreme court, so I am fine with getting the question answered.  I am not a lawyer, but I think the question is related to the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment.  When the 14th was passed it was interpreted to not cover Native Americans since they were not completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  This lead to the "Indian Citizenship Act" of 1924.  I don't think illegal immigration was as big of an issue when the 14th was passed, or even in 1924, so maybe it is time to get SCOTUS to weigh in.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The issue is that  jus soli for illegal immigrants has never been put before the supreme court, so I am fine with getting the question answered.  I am not a lawyer, but I think the question is related to the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment.  When the 14th was passed it was interpreted to not cover Native Americans since they were not completely subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  This lead to the "Indian Citizenship Act" of 1924.  I don't think illegal immigration was as big of an issue when the 14th was passed, or even in 1924, so maybe it is time to get SCOTUS to weigh in.

The Supreme Court should look at this, IMHO. The Second Amendment has already stood up to SCOTUS scrutiny. I’m guessing that this one won’t. I think there should be more well  defined guidelines. 

[TBoneTX 45,663]

I heard a constitutional lawyer on the radio yesterday.  He said that defining "subject to the jurisdiction..." would be less murky than determining the intent of the authors (plural).

 

He added that, as a practical matter, we've had years and years of recognizing the U.S.-born as full citizens.  If that's walked back, just one ramification is that some countries have no reciprocal citizenship, so we'd end up with stateless people and no place to put them.

 

He said that it would be far easier to put a wall around the Welfare system than to put a wall at the border.  This would also handle the "birth tourism" industry.