(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?

It would be funnier if you were accurate. But you're not.

(10-30-2018 09:33 AM)Eagleaidaholic 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

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?

I believe in the constitution.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(10-30-2018 09:33 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

The 14th amendment seems pretty clear on the subject.

Of course if you don't believe in strict interpretation and believe in a "living Constitution"....

Worst part about Kennedy's gay marriage ruling. If a Supreme Court can rule by a 1 vote margin to create a right nobody had dreamed of 20 years before and almost nobody thought was a right 10 years before, the court can also take away rights.

There are probably multiple arguments in play.
-14th Amendment was specifically designed to give citizenship to freed blacks post civil war, explicit intent
of the amendment was this.
-"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Foreigners are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
-Is the birth parent in the USA legally or illegally.

There is always the language first and foremost then the intent.

(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.

You do realize that this is in no way shape or form how "issues" get to SCOTUS, right?

And your comment on the 2nd is ridiculous. I'm not for any sort of repeal to the second amendment, but that you can also place reasonable restrictions on certain rights if it's for the public good.

(10-30-2018 09:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:33 AM)VA49er Wrote:  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.

The 14th amendment seems pretty clear on the subject.

Of course if you don't believe in strict interpretation and believe in a "living Constitution"....

Yeah, I went and read the 14th and it's plain as day, at least IMO, as to what it says. So, IMO, it doesn't seem Trump can do this via EO, etc. IMO, that section of the amendment needs doing away with; however, via EO is not the way to go.

(10-30-2018 09:36 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:33 AM)Eagleaidaholic 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

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?

I believe in the constitution.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Exact answer I hoped you would respond back with. Then you want the SCOTUS to rule on and clarify the phrase"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

(10-30-2018 09:47 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:36 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:33 AM)Eagleaidaholic 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

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?

I believe in the constitution.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Exact answer I hoped you would respond back with. Then you want the SCOTUS to rule on and clarify the phrase"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

They have generations of precedent on this. It has been ruled on. If Republicans don't like it then bring it up in Congress and follow the protocol that the founding fathers established.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

This guy makes some fairly good points. This will be an epic court battle

What is "Subject to the Jurisdiction of"

(10-30-2018 09:40 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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.

You do realize that this is in no way shape or form how "issues" get to SCOTUS, right?

And your comment on the 2nd is ridiculous. I'm not for any sort of repeal to the second amendment, but that you can also place reasonable restrictions on certain rights if it's for the public good.

Funny, the travel ban and the refugee ban were both EO's that were challenged and eventually decided by the SCOTUS so in fact this method isn't unheard of.

Aside from that, there's no difference between wanting legal clarification on gun ownership and legal clarification on what is meant by "birthright citizenship".

If my second amendment rights can be questioned or even curbed, why can't the same be done for this?

All of the arguments posted here substantiate why this needs to go to the SCOTUS for interpretations as far as illegals are concerned.

(10-30-2018 06:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  Sounds like fake news. It would probably take a constitutional amendment and certainly couldn't be done by the Obama method of bypassing Congress.

That’s what I’m thinking. Birthright citizenship is literally specifically calmly spelled out in the constitution. That’s as strong as a Federal law can get. It certainly can’t be overturned with the weakest form of Federal legal power—the executive order.

I actually agree with the change—but the only way to do it is to amend the constitution.

(10-30-2018 09:54 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  This guy makes some fairly good points. This will be an epic court battle

What is "Subject to the Jurisdiction of"

Thanks for posting. One can see further the intent of the 14th, expressly for freed slaves. Even Native Americans were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Tuesday that he will introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship after President Trump suggested he could do so through an executive order.

"Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform – and at the same time – the elimination of birthright citizenship," Graham said in a string of tweets.

He added that he plans "to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order" from Trump. Congress is out of session until Nov. 13.
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s...ssion=true

Doesn't pretty much every country in the Americas have this same "absurd" policy of birthright citizenship?

(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.

Calling for a constitutional convention to amend it is dangerous if the scope isn't very narrowly and clearly defined.

(10-30-2018 08:49 AM)umbluegray 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

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.

This^

(10-30-2018 10:43 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Doesn't pretty much every country in the Americas have this same "absurd" policy of birthright citizenship?

What about Europe Tom? Most of the Americas are Jus Soli, restrictions exist in some countries like Colombia and DR.

(10-30-2018 10:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(10-30-2018 09:54 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  This guy makes some fairly good points. This will be an epic court battle

What is "Subject to the Jurisdiction of"

Thanks for posting. One can see further the intent of the 14th, expressly for freed slaves. Even Native Americans were not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Correct. And it took an act of congress in the 50's to actually get past the 14th amendment as far as allowing NA to vote in federal elections.