Birthright citizenship

[PhreeZone 15]

The 14th amendment is as follows:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


With Trump saying he is signing an EO shortly to eliminate the birthright citizenship it will not be long until the supreme court will be taking this case on since a stay will be issued within hours of it being signed. With the recent majority shift will this be a easy decision for them to agree the president has the ability to do anything via EO or not?

Thoughts from the Right:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ending-birthright-citizenship-would-be-as-unconstitutional-as-it-is-unproductive

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[gowlerk 1,915]

He will say anything to further divide people. He is getting desperate and the immigration/invader thing is all he really has to grab onto. I hope enough people can see through the fog.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 2,403]

Well, he's already gone after the 1st amendment, with comments that "there should be a law against" newspapers printing what they want to. No surprise that he is now focusing on the 14th.

[PhreeZone 15]

Its also been pointed out that this is being brought up only a week out from the election and there is a really high chance that this will all be dropped in 8 days. If democrats take the house it will be argued that with out the house then there is no way for the EO to stay since congress would just issue legislation to override it. If Republicans retain Congress then it will be kicked over and told to write a law to so this. Odds are this will all be over in a week and is only being used to generate votes and give the base some red meat.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[SkyDekker 1,129]

I think he is just trying to change the narrative away from him inciting violence.

[yoink 321]

Regardless of the cynical timing I think I actually agree that the 14th needs a change.But it needs to be done properly - not by EO just to get votes.

[Faicon9493 114]

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

[billvon 2,403]

Woah there! This isn't going to affect the RUSSIANS, is it? Because then it's a non-starter. Trump will not want to make his masters angry.

[Faicon9493 114]

They will get a pass, especially if they’re paying to live on his property.

[baronn 111]

Don't remember Trump saying there should be a law against newspapers printing anything they want. What I have seen is he is against them printing false stories and deliberately misleading people with them> If you or I did that, we could be legally obligated. Newspapers get a pass. That some simply is not fair.
BTW, I don't agree with his position on this

[SkyDekker 1,129]

baronn

Don't remember Trump saying there should be a law against newspapers printing anything they want. What I have seen is he is against them printing false stories and deliberately misleading people with them> If you or I did that, we could be legally obligated. Newspapers get a pass. That some simply is not fair.

Your idiot in chief lies on a daily basis, deliberately misleading people. There is nobody on the right calling him out on that. Maybe start in your own house, before throwing stones?

Doesn't Jesus say something about that at some point?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

yoink

Regardless of the cynical timing I think I actually agree that the 14th needs a change.But it needs to be done properly - not by EO just to get votes.

Apart from the obvious issue of granting the President the power to unilaterally change the Constitution by executive order (leaving essentially no daylight between "President" and "Dear Ruler"), there is also the issue of what system will replace the 14th amendment. What will suffice to qualify someone as a US citizen, if not the fact that they were born here? Both mommy and daddy have to prove they are citizens? If birthright citizenship is disqualified, how would they prove their citizenship? How many generations back would someone have to be able to document their US citizen ancestors? What would happen if mommy is a citizen and daddy is not? Some apparently already think this situation disqualifies Obama from citizenship. How about if daddy has flown the coop, or mommy isn't completely sure who daddy is? Would this constitutional revision be retroactive? Would children of legal immigrants be stripped of their citizenship?

One thing is for certain: don't expect thought-out answers from the divider-in-chief.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

baronn

Don't remember Trump saying there should be a law against newspapers printing anything they want. What I have seen is he is against them printing false stories and deliberately misleading people with them> If you or I did that, we could be legally obligated. Newspapers get a pass. That some simply is not fair.

Trump claims that any new story that is critical of him is fake.

The idiots that support him blindly repeat that.
They actually believe it.

Absolutely hilarious that nobody noticed any 'fake news' on a widespread basis until Trump ran for president.

And please expand on the "if you or I did that, we could be legally obligated."

Free speech doesn't apply to just the press. And libel/slander laws don't apply to just the public.

For example, Trump has repeatedly threatened libel suits against the press. None have gone anywhere, but that's because truth is a defense against libel (you can say mean stuff, as long as it's true).

As an example from the other side; how many people claim HRC has committed felony crimes? Or that Obama wasn't a US citizen?
Those are pretty clearly libelous.

Or look at the political ads airing these days. I've stopped watching the local evening news because all of the commercials are election related.
Many of those ads make claims that are lies. And some pretty nasty ones at that.
I don't know how it is elsewhere, but around here the lies have been done more often by the Republicans (or the 'dark money' activist groups supporting them).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,390]

GeorgiaDon

Apart from the obvious issue of granting the President the power to unilaterally change the Constitution by executive order (leaving essentially no daylight between "President" and "Dear Ruler"), there is also the issue of what system will replace the 14th amendment. What will suffice to qualify someone as a US citizen, if not the fact that they were born here? Both mommy and daddy have to prove they are citizens? If birthright citizenship is disqualified, how would they prove their citizenship? How many generations back would someone have to be able to document their US citizen ancestors? What would happen if mommy is a citizen and daddy is not? Some apparently already think this situation disqualifies Obama from citizenship. How about if daddy has flown the coop, or mommy isn't completely sure who daddy is? Would this constitutional revision be retroactive? Would children of legal immigrants be stripped of their citizenship?

I've long thought the idea of granting citizenship based on where the mother happens to be at time of birth is silly. But it needs to be changed by amendment. Period.

As for how to determine citizenship, it is simple: The child has the same citizenship as the mother.

Determining citizenship of the father is problematic.
- The mother might lie to get her child a preferred citizenship.
- The mother might have an "active" social life causing her to be mistaken about who the father is.

There is no question who the mother is.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[gowlerk 1,915]

Unless the mother is married. If so it does not matter who the biological father is. Legally the child will be considered a child of the marriage.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

ryoder

***Apart from the obvious issue of granting the President the power to unilaterally change the Constitution by executive order (leaving essentially no daylight between "President" and "Dear Ruler"), there is also the issue of what system will replace the 14th amendment. What will suffice to qualify someone as a US citizen, if not the fact that they were born here? Both mommy and daddy have to prove they are citizens? If birthright citizenship is disqualified, how would they prove their citizenship? How many generations back would someone have to be able to document their US citizen ancestors? What would happen if mommy is a citizen and daddy is not? Some apparently already think this situation disqualifies Obama from citizenship. How about if daddy has flown the coop, or mommy isn't completely sure who daddy is? Would this constitutional revision be retroactive? Would children of legal immigrants be stripped of their citizenship?

I've long thought the idea of granting citizenship based on where the mother happens to be at time of birth is silly. But it needs to be changed by amendment. Period.

As for how to determine citizenship, it is simple: The child has the same citizenship as the mother.

Determining citizenship of the father is problematic.
- The mother might lie to get her child a preferred citizenship.
- The mother might have an "active" social life causing her to be mistaken about who the father is.

There is no question who the mother is.

This.

I agree 100% and support this being instituted in Canada. I also think there are much bigger issues to deal with than birth tourism.

Of course this also means that Baron is probably not a US citizen.

[jclalor 12]

Imagine the great wailing and gnashing of teeth if Obama wanted to get rid of the 2nd by EO.

[yoink 321]

GeorgiaDon

***Regardless of the cynical timing I think I actually agree that the 14th needs a change.But it needs to be done properly - not by EO just to get votes.

Apart from the obvious issue of granting the President the power to unilaterally change the Constitution by executive order (leaving essentially no daylight between "President" and "Dear Ruler"), there is also the issue of what system will replace the 14th amendment. What will suffice to qualify someone as a US citizen, if not the fact that they were born here? Both mommy and daddy have to prove they are citizens? If birthright citizenship is disqualified, how would they prove their citizenship? How many generations back would someone have to be able to document their US citizen ancestors? What would happen if mommy is a citizen and daddy is not? Some apparently already think this situation disqualifies Obama from citizenship. How about if daddy has flown the coop, or mommy isn't completely sure who daddy is? Would this constitutional revision be retroactive? Would children of legal immigrants be stripped of their citizenship?

One thing is for certain: don't expect thought-out answers from the divider-in-chief.

Don

Yeah, it's not simple, and I haven't thought about the exact mechanics in a huge amount of detail but I do think that automatic citizenship to anyone born here regardless of status isn't the solution either.

You're right though - either way Trump is simply saying whatever he can to get some votes without any real thought. I got an email from both him AND Pence this morning urging me to go out and vote to counter all of the lying liberal media.

Excerpt from Trump's mail-shot:

Quote

I know we are fighting the Hollywood liberal money machine, playing defense against the fake news, and battling UNPRECEDENTED obstruction in the Swamp of Washington, D.C.

But all that matters now is YOUR vote. And today is the last day to vote EARLY.

You can find your polling location here: vote.donaldjtrump.com

I hope you'll vote today. We absolutely cannot let the people’s House fall into the hands of the radical Democrats.

and Mr. Vice President:

Quote

President Trump and I are working overtime to deliver on our promises.

We’ve overturned countless unnecessary regulations, we’ve empowered our industry, and we’ve made sure more Americans can keep more of their own money in their pockets with tax reform.

And that is only the beginning of what we can accomplish. If we have the opportunity to work with a Republican majority, we can continue our progress and truly make America great!

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

. If we have the opportunity to work with a Republican majority, we can continue our progress and truly make America great!

So the kind of majority they've had for... *checks notes*... their entire administration?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[jakee 1,257]

baronn

If you or I did that, we could be legally obligated. Newspapers get a pass.

That is flat wrong. The news media are subject to libel laws.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[BIGUN 1,059]

PhreeZone

The 14th amendment is as follows:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


With Trump saying he is signing an EO shortly to eliminate the birthright citizenship it will not be long until the supreme court will be taking this case on since a stay will be issued within hours of it being signed. With the recent majority shift will this be a easy decision for them to agree the president has the ability to do anything via EO or not?

Thoughts from the Right:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ending-birthright-citizenship-would-be-as-unconstitutional-as-it-is-unproductive

There is an argument to be made for the first part of the amendment. "all persons being born or naturalized in the United States," read as a domiciled citizen - not as a tourist or illegal immigrant showing up to have a kid and, Ta Da!!! My kid is an American.

"A president could direct his agencies to fall in line with his interpretation of the Supreme Court's rulings, which are arguably limited to children of permanently domiciled immigrants (the court has never squarely ruled on children born to tourists or illegal aliens). He could direct his agencies to issue Social Security numbers and passports only to newborns who have at least one parent who is a citizen or permanently domiciled immigrant,"

SOURCE: https://www.clintonherald.com/news/national_world_news/trump-end-birthright-citizenship-for-some-us-born-babies/article_47d53e2a-08dc-59c4-baf8-ae441fe27a49.html

Having shared this - My own opinion is that its mid-term saber-rattling and even if he does get it written and signed; he'd better have an army of legal experts ensure the verbiage is absolutely Supreme Court proof. I don't think that can happen in a week.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[DJL 232]

Quote

Having shared this - My own opinion is that its mid-term saber-rattling and even if he does get it written and signed; he'd better have an army of legal experts ensure the verbiage is absolutely Supreme Court proof. I don't think that can happen in a week.

All he needs in a week is enough people to vote according to this promise.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,403]

>With Trump saying he is signing an EO shortly to eliminate the birthright citizenship . . .

So where do you think they will deport Barron to - Slovenia or Russia?

[gowlerk 1,915]

Quote

There is an argument to be made for the first part of the amendment. "all persons being born or naturalized in the United States," read as a domiciled citizen - not as a tourist or illegal immigrant showing up to have a kid and, Ta Da!!! My kid is an American.

I suppose a posse of lawyers could start arguing about the meaning of the word "or".

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

billvon

>With Trump saying he is signing an EO shortly to eliminate the birthright citizenship . . .

So where do you think they will deport Barron to - Slovenia or Russia?

Barron is white so he gets to stay.
Melania was an illegal immigrant, but she is white, hot, showed her tits and willing to fuck old, ugly, white, rich men. So she gets to stay too.

This whole immigration thing is about skin colour and nothing else.

Would love to know how many Republican skydivers reported a dropzone for employing illegal packers, which would be about every one of them.