As a moderate who leans right, the fastest way to make me vote Democrat would be to try what is being suggested here. I'm all for securing the border, but I'm not for changing a constitutional amendment that's been in place for generations. Especially not by some ridiculous executive order. If the feelings are popular enough we have a means to changing the constitution, and it is not via EO or a court case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(10-30-2018 08:21 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Here's a summary for those interested.

The 14th Amendment states: "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."

Trump, should he pursue the executive order, would face court challenges, and it remains unclear whether he could prevail. Many legal scholars would argue such a change requires a constitutional amendment. But some conservatives argue the existing amendment holds room for interpretation.

Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

"What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-s...itizenship

The 2nd Amendment has certainly been declared open to interpretation by the left. Hell, the entire constitution has been declared as dynamic and open to interpretation by the left.

I have a feeling the Axios report is fake news anyway.

I dont believe precedent for brithright citizenship for illegals has ever been made before. All of the other rulings had to do with native americans and legal immigrants.

(10-30-2018 08:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I have a feeling the Axios report is fake news anyway.

It's being reported by the media so it has to be true, right?

(10-30-2018 08:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  People who no longer would be citizens under Trump's EO: Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal......


Can we make it retro active?

You're confusing different situations.

All the people you cited either had a parent who was an American citizen or had parents who were here LEGALLY.

I have no issues in either case.

I do have issues with people who sneak across the border illegally, drop a kid, and think that kid somehow deserves "rights" as a LEGAL citizen.

Once again, crime shouldn't pay.

(10-30-2018 08:37 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 08:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I have a feeling the Axios report is fake news anyway.

It's being reported by the media so it has to be true, right?

It was a live interview?

https://youtu.be/H0d21nQBY8o

(10-30-2018 08:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  As a moderate who leans right, the fastest way to make me vote Democrat would be to try what is being suggested here. I'm all for securing the border, but I'm not for changing a constitutional amendment that's been in place for generations. Especially not by some ridiculous executive order. If the feelings are popular enough we have a means to changing the constitution, and it is not via EO or a court case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

This would be a case of playing the long game.

The EO will most definitely be challenged. What this DOES is allow the case to be heard by the SCOTUS who can then make a ruling on the legality of the question.

It's a rather shrewd way to get the issue in front of the SCOTUS.

Racists hate the 14th amendment and its guarantee of birthright citizenship. They hated it when it was ratified to protect black Americans, and they hate it now that it protects brown Americans. Trump knows that race-baiting works with his base, so he’s doing something that has zero shot of ever being ruled legal, but will get all his racist fans excited before the election.

(10-30-2018 08:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  As a moderate who leans right, the fastest way to make me vote Democrat would be to try what is being suggested here. I'm all for securing the border, but I'm not for changing a constitutional amendment that's been in place for generations. Especially not by some ridiculous executive order. If the feelings are popular enough we have a means to changing the constitution, and it is not via EO or a court case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But would the fastest way to make you vote republican is if the democrats take away your second amendment? Do you have a right to bear arms in Chicago or not? Or are you no longer a citizen in chicago?

(10-30-2018 08:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  As a moderate who leans right, the fastest way to make me vote Democrat would be to try what is being suggested here. I'm all for securing the border, but I'm not for changing a constitutional amendment that's been in place for generations. Especially not by some ridiculous executive order. If the feelings are popular enough we have a means to changing the constitution, and it is not via EO or a court case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

As a conservative who leans about as right as you can go I think this wouldn't be an issue if the government had been protecting our borders all along.

At the very least it will be interesting to hear the communist senators and reps gripe and complain about EOs, you know, given that they were happy as clams when their guy was doing it.

If this is a way to try and get this issue before the Supreme Court for a legal clarification before some type of immigration reform I'm all for it. This SCOTUS is as Original Intent oriented as can be hoped for. If ending birth-based citizenship is Unconstitutional they'll overrule the EO and then the Administration will have clarification for the extent of immigration reform they can push for.

I suspect it's just Trump trying to energize his base pre-election.

(10-30-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 08:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  As a moderate who leans right, the fastest way to make me vote Democrat would be to try what is being suggested here. I'm all for securing the border, but I'm not for changing a constitutional amendment that's been in place for generations. Especially not by some ridiculous executive order. If the feelings are popular enough we have a means to changing the constitution, and it is not via EO or a court case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

This would be a case of playing the long game.

The EO will most definitely be challenged. What this DOES is allow the case to be heard by the SCOTUS who can then make a ruling on the legality of the question.

It's a rather shrewd way to get the issue in front of the SCOTUS.

Its actually the PROPER way to get it in front of the SCOTUS as well. We dont need an amendment to the constitution, we simply want the constitution enforced as written.

If SCOTUS comes back and says "well, it looks like birthright citizenship for illegals is present" then and only then is there a need for an amendment.

(10-30-2018 08:45 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 08:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  As a moderate who leans right, the fastest way to make me vote Democrat would be to try what is being suggested here. I'm all for securing the border, but I'm not for changing a constitutional amendment that's been in place for generations. Especially not by some ridiculous executive order. If the feelings are popular enough we have a means to changing the constitution, and it is not via EO or a court case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

But would the fastest way to make you vote republican is if the democrats take away your second amendment? Do you have a right to bear arms in Chicago or not? Or are you no longer a citizen in chicago?

I am pro 2nd amendment all the way. That being said, Trump talking about taking away freedoms of the press scares the hell out of me. I watch a variety of news outlets and try to decipher the reality because all of them slant to one side or another.

Like I said, I'm a moderate. I think this could end up being a grave mistake by the Republicans if they go along with it. There is a large group of moderates who have disdain for both parties. If they want to push then to the left this is the way to do it. Secure the borders by all means.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So, now the emperor thinks he can repeal an amendment with an EO? I suppose you guys also think you're getting that 10% tax cut before the mid-terms too?

(10-30-2018 07:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  One parent should have to be a citizen, or at the very least a legal non-citizen resident and that parent should have to claim the child as a dependent.

And have a legit way to provide for the kid, not have both of them become wards of the state.

IOW’s, your and my responsibility.

(10-30-2018 09:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, now the emperor thinks he can repeal an amendment with an EO? I suppose you guys also think you're getting that 10% tax cut before the mid-terms too?

What I believe he thinks is that is a great way to bring the issue to the SCOTUS for them to decide whether anchor babies are constitutional.

I do find it funny that the same people criticizing him for this have absolutely no problem "pushing the issue" when it comes to our gun rights.

(10-30-2018 09:25 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So, now the emperor thinks he can repeal an amendment with an EO? I suppose you guys also think you're getting that 10% tax cut before the mid-terms too?

What I believe he thinks is that is a great way to bring the issue to the SCOTUS for them to decide whether anchor babies are constitutional.

I do find it funny that the same people criticizing him for this have absolutely no problem "pushing the issue" when it comes to our gun rights.

I've never been on the side of anti 2nd amendment. I'm 100% on the side if the constitution which puts me at odds with both parties. I believe in the living document and the ways in which our forefathers built in ways to amend it. Not this bs crap that both parties have now done to bastardize the process.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(10-30-2018 08:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  As a moderate who leans right, the fastest way to make me vote Democrat would be to try what is being suggested here. I'm all for securing the border, but I'm not for changing a constitutional amendment that's been in place for generations. Especially not by some ridiculous executive order. If the feelings are popular enough we have a means to changing the constitution, and it is not via EO or a court case.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

So. Do you think a family with young children with a mom come to America to go to Disney Land from India who is 7 months pregnant and goes into labor and has her baby in Anaheim that the baby should be a US citizen?

No idea if it will pass constitutional muster; however, doing it via EO is pointless anyway as it will just be overturned by a future POTUS.