Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[Dashinka 24,505]

12 hours ago, lierre said:

 

Haven't read much on whether major parties are at odds internally about this. I just saw Paul Ryan's reaction to the potential EO.

 

With the history behind the 14th Amendment and anything constitution-related really, I never expect things to be smooth politically, lol.

 

Take for instance, the 2nd Amendment, interpretations of it vary. Some Republicans are against toy guns in schools while others are all for it, citing that it's a violation of the 2nd.

 

 

 

Maybe that is why Trump has brought up the discussion.  Keep in mind, no EO has been issued yet, but just the mention of Trump doing it has raised the question.  Maybe the Congress should do its job and make some changes to immigration law which might include this and let the courts make the interpretation as to if a Constitutional Amendment is required.  This certainly is a topic that is among the top items on the minds of the everyday Americans (immigration concerns), so to me there is nothing wrong with Trump getting the debate started which is all that has happened so far.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[TBoneTX 45,299]

6 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

the Congress should do its job and make some changes to immigration law

Some Federal judge in Calif. or Hawaii would put a stop to it.

[jg121783 3,915]

I would like to see the supreme court rule on whether or not illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US because if not the 14th amendment doesn't apply to their children.

[lierre 224]

5 hours ago, jg121783 said:

I would like to see the supreme court rule on whether or not illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US because if not the 14th amendment doesn't apply to their children.

 

I have read about this. And the writer made a good analogy:

 

Quote

To test this idea, ask yourself: If a foreign citizen rear-ends your car on your drive home today, will you, or the police, allow him to drive away on the grounds that a foreign citizen cannot be arrested, ticketed, or sued?

 

For those scoring at home, the answer is no.

 

Foreign citizens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of our police and courts when they are in the U.S., whether as tourists, legal residents, or undocumented immigrants. Only one group is not “subject to the jurisdiction”—accredited foreign diplomats and their families, who can be expelled by the federal government but not arrested or tried.

 

That’s who the framers of the clause were discussing in Section 1—along with one other group. In 1866, when the amendment was framed, Indians living under tribal rule were not U.S. citizens. Under the law as it was then, American police could not arrest them, and American citizens could not sue them. Relations with Indian tribes were handled government to government, like relations with foreign nations: If Native people left the reservation and harmed American citizens, those citizens had to apply to the U.S. government, which would officially protest and seek compensation from the tribal government. In that respect, Indians living under tribal government were as protected as foreign diplomats are today.

 

 

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/ 

[Boiler 45,519]

3 minutes ago, lierre said:

 

I have read about this. And the writer made a good analogy:

 

 

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/ 

Would not that depend on whether they live in Sanctuary Cities?

[lierre 224]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Would not that depend on whether they live in Sanctuary Cities?

what do you mean? Like if they don't live in "sanctuary cities", they can't be apprehended for breaking local law?

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by lierre

[Boiler 45,519]

5 minutes ago, lierre said:

what do you mean? Like if they don't live in "sanctuary cities", they can't be apprehended for breaking local law?

 

 

Well given a pass, same deal.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

6 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Some Federal judge in Calif. or Hawaii would put a stop to it.

The Supreme Court would, too. 

 

If it was that easy to change the constitution, then they should just remove the outdated 2nd amendment which no longer makes sense in the modern world. 

12 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Maybe that is why Trump has brought up the discussion.  Keep in mind, no EO has been issued yet, but just the mention of Trump doing it has raised the question.  Maybe the Congress should do its job and make some changes to immigration law which might include this and let the courts make the interpretation as to if a Constitutional Amendment is required.  This certainly is a topic that is among the top items on the minds of the everyday Americans (immigration concerns), so to me there is nothing wrong with Trump getting the debate started which is all that has happened so far.

There's everything wrong with Trump outright lying that he can change the constitution with a an Executive order. 

 

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. 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 country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years... "

 

It's just wrong that he can change it with an executive order and he's shamelessly lying about it. He's also lying that the US is the only country with birthright citizenship (although, of course, it's the only country that gives people a US citizenship but it wouldn't make sense for Brazil or Japan to give US citizenship to people born there, so either the president is terrible at expressing a coherent thought or he's making meaningless statements). 

 

I don't understand why so many people are defending this conman. He's a proven crook and liar and he contradicts himself all the time. He also says stupid and nonsensical things all the time. Nobody should ever pay attention to his rant about how he will end birthright citizenship because it's pure nonsense. If he wants to start a conversation about it, he should try doing so in a more intelligent and honest way, without outright lying and spreading false facts ("alternative facts"). 

[Boiler 45,519]

2 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

The Supreme Court would, too. 

 

If it was that easy to change the constitution, then they should just remove the outdated 2nd amendment which no longer makes sense in the modern world. 

There's everything wrong with Trump outright lying that he can change the constitution with a an Executive order. 

 

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. 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 country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years... "

 

It's just wrong that he can change it with an executive order and he's shamelessly lying about it. He's also lying that the US is the only country with birthright citizenship (although, of course, it's the only country that gives people a US citizenship but it wouldn't make sense for Brazil or Japan to give US citizenship to people born there, so either the president is terrible at expressing a coherent thought or he's making meaningless statements). 

 

I don't understand why so many people are defending this conman. He's a proven crook and liar and he contradicts himself all the time. He also says stupid and nonsensical things all the time. Nobody should ever pay attention to his rant about how he will end birthright citizenship because it's pure nonsense. If he wants to start a conversation about it, he should try doing so in a more intelligent and honest way, without outright lying and spreading false facts ("alternative facts"). 

 

To think we could have had she who is apparently irrelevant.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

28 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Would not that depend on whether they live in Sanctuary Cities?

 

33 minutes ago, lierre said:

 

I have read about this. And the writer made a good analogy:

 

 

Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/ 

As someone who was living in a Sanctuary City, County, and State before I can tell you that Illegals are given a free pass with a fair number of things. I was sideswiped by a illegal young woman that had a DL but NO insurance. She was not given a ticket at all and not even deemed at fault even though she had NO INSURANCE and she HIT ME. 

[Orangesapples 1,954]

29 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Would not that depend on whether they live in Sanctuary Cities?

Of course not. Illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities are also under the jurisdiction of the US. If they commit a crime, they will be arrested, if they're a victim of a crime, they will be protected the same way a citizen would be. They're not like diplomats from foreign countries who can literally get away with murder and suffer no consequences from not paying parking tickets or running red lights. 

 

 

[Boiler 45,519]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

 

As someone who was living in a Sanctuary City, County, and State before I can tell you that Illegals are given a free pass with a fair number of things. I was sideswiped by a illegal young woman that had a DL but NO insurance. She was not given a ticket at all and not even deemed at fault even though she had NO INSURANCE and she HIT ME. 

In Denver they have, well had anyway, Agricultural Trespass for illegals.

 

I remember when I first came over and was told to make sure child seats were used and not to take notice of those here sans documentation who did not as the Police would not bother them.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

In Denver they have, well had anyway, Agricultural Trespass for illegals.

 

I remember when I first came over and was told to make sure child seats were used and not to take notice of those here sans documentation who did not as the Police would not bother them.

Seriously the only time illegals are even put in jail is for some serious offenses. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Orangesapples said:

The Supreme Court would, too. 

 

If it was that easy to change the constitution, then they should just remove the outdated 2nd amendment which no longer makes sense in the modern world. 

 

Except the 2nd still makes total sense, and is far from outdated.  It is timeless in its original intent.  Thankfully.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

The Supreme Court would, too. 

 

If it was that easy to change the constitution, then they should just remove the outdated 2nd amendment which no longer makes sense in the modern world. 

There's everything wrong with Trump outright lying that he can change the constitution with a an Executive order. 

 

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. 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 country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years... "

 

It's just wrong that he can change it with an executive order and he's shamelessly lying about it. He's also lying that the US is the only country with birthright citizenship (although, of course, it's the only country that gives people a US citizenship but it wouldn't make sense for Brazil or Japan to give US citizenship to people born there, so either the president is terrible at expressing a coherent thought or he's making meaningless statements). 

 

I don't understand why so many people are defending this conman. He's a proven crook and liar and he contradicts himself all the time. He also says stupid and nonsensical things all the time. Nobody should ever pay attention to his rant about how he will end birthright citizenship because it's pure nonsense. If he wants to start a conversation about it, he should try doing so in a more intelligent and honest way, without outright lying and spreading false facts ("alternative facts"). 

 

Well he may say crazy stuff at times but his policies have this country doing the best it has economically in the last 40 years.

 

North Korea is not firing missiles at Japan 

 

Remember ISIS the junior varsity.  Yup not in the news so much huh

 

Tax revenues are highest in years.