Trump to End Birthright Citizenship

[∞∞∞]

Hasn’t SCOTUS never ruled on the birthright citizenship question? The 14th Amendment was ratified after the War Between the States. The Citizenship Clause was written specifically to deal with the recently freed slaves. It reversed part of the Dred Scott decision which said blacks couldn’t become citizens of the US. Had nothing to do with children of illegal immigrants.

Look, I'm as indifferent to the Constitution as you are, but the 14th seems pretty clear:

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.

[CID1990]

Hasn’t SCOTUS never ruled on the birthright citizenship question? The 14th Amendment was ratified after the War Between the States. The Citizenship Clause was written specifically to deal with the recently freed slaves. It reversed part of the Dred Scott decision which said blacks couldn’t become citizens of the US. Had nothing to do with children of illegal immigrants.

Yes they have - in 1898

Here’s a good synopsis:

https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-supre ... tizenship/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

But, aren't we supposed to be giving him credit for things that haven't produced results like the Trade War?

Do you want to shift the conversation into the realm of things that are within the Executive’s authority, Reek? Because I thought this was about Trump trying to end-run the Constitution.

You should know better by now than to try to peddle your false equivalencies with me, boy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice tap out.

It was about kvetching in regard to things things that Trump hasn't actually done - like buying Greenland or ending birthright citizenship.

As it's not worth bitching about things that haven't happened - neither is it worth praising him for other things that haven't happened - like the trade war materially restructuring trade between the two countries, NK denuclearization, etc.

[CID1990]

Do you want to shift the conversation into the realm of things that are within the Executive’s authority, Reek? Because I thought this was about Trump trying to end-run the Constitution.

You should know better by now than to try to peddle your false equivalencies with me, boy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was about kvetching in regard to things things that Trump hasn't actually done - like buying Greenland or ending birthright citizenship.

As it's not worth bitching about things that haven't happened - neither is it worth praising him for other things that haven't happened - like the trade war materially restructuring trade between the two countries, NK denuclearization, etc.

Go backpedal your ass away somewhere else.

Trump is within his authority on trade. He is not within his authority on jus soli.

This is why you fall for conspiracy theories, Reek. Because you draw connections and nexuses where none exist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm not saying trade policy is unconstitutional.

I'm saying the Trade War has accomplished as much as he has by this latest tuft of wind.

Is this thread only about constitutionality?

[SDHornet]

Again, he just wins by sucking the air out of the room. People have been talking about Greenland for a week now and there's zero chance Trump will be able to buy it. People start talking about Democratic polls and who's ahead and he comes out with the new rules regarding families at the border and then this. There's no chance he's changing the 14th amendment, so all it serves is to dominate the news and discussion. Say what you will about him, and he's every bit the buffoon he looks to be, but he's certainly stumbled onto a way he can win again in 2020, and that's by dominating every news cycle as he's been doing.

This ^^^^


Everybody knows it can’t happen without an act of Congress except the most uneducated of his base, and the chattering drama queens and their media puppeteers

Looks like we have at least 3 of the drama queens right here

Any article that has Trump spitballing about things he’s a gonna doooooo is pure catnip for people like Jearf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. People should be worried about this birthright thing just as much as the EC being removed...

...which is to say not at all.

[SDHornet]

Do you want to shift the conversation into the realm of things that are within the Executive’s authority, Reek? Because I thought this was about Trump trying to end-run the Constitution.

You should know better by now than to try to peddle your false equivalencies with me, boy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice tap out.

It was about kvetching in regard to things things that Trump hasn't actually done - like buying Greenland or ending birthright citizenship.

As it's not worth bitching about things that haven't happened - neither is it worth praising him for other things that haven't happened - like the trade war materially restructuring trade between the two countries, NK denuclearization, etc.

Dude, you literally spent 2 years on this board bitching about Trump-Russian Collusion that never happened.

By the way, noticed you are posting more now that the Trump Russian Conspiracy Theory that the msm has been pimping has fallen to the wayside. Coincidence, no?

[Ivytalk]

Hasn’t SCOTUS never ruled on the birthright citizenship question? The 14th Amendment was ratified after the War Between the States. The Citizenship Clause was written specifically to deal with the recently freed slaves. It reversed part of the Dred Scott decision which said blacks couldn’t become citizens of the US. Had nothing to do with children of illegal immigrants.

Look, I'm as indifferent to the Constitution as you are, but the 14th seems pretty clear:

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.

“Indifferent,” huh? That’s a step up for you. A few months ago, you wanted to trash the whole thing and start over.

[BDKJMU]

Hasn’t SCOTUS never ruled on the birthright citizenship question? The 14th Amendment was ratified after the War Between the States. The Citizenship Clause was written specifically to deal with the recently freed slaves. It reversed part of the Dred Scott decision which said blacks couldn’t become citizens of the US. Had nothing to do with children of illegal immigrants.

Look, I'm indifferent to the Constitution unlike you , but the 14th seems pretty clear:

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.

FIFY

[AZGrizFan]

Wasn't this part of your list detailing Trump's greatness yesterday?



i guess that can be scratched off your list.





And, it goes both ways.

I do find it humorous that Conks, for whom the Constitution is etched in stone, suddenly think it is just a "sheet of paper" or a "living document".

That why asked my question.

And I’ve made it very clear I don’t support it. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

[dbackjon]

Wrong, we have always respected ALL of the Constitution. Just because you don't UNDERSTAND the purpose or the meaning of the 2nd, doesn't mean you are right about it.

Bullshit, dback. The Electoral College. I rest my case.

I leaned early in my career that exaggeration is fatal to a coherent argument, legal or otherwise.

The outdated system devised by slave states that allows the tyranny of the majority?

Yup, needs to be abolished. But liberals are smart enough to know that you can't eliminate it by executive pooper order.


Donnie is cracking up

[dbackjon]

Again, he just wins by sucking the air out of the room. People have been talking about Greenland for a week now and there's zero chance Trump will be able to buy it. People start talking about Democratic polls and who's ahead and he comes out with the new rules regarding families at the border and then this. There's no chance he's changing the 14th amendment, so all it serves is to dominate the news and discussion. Say what you will about him, and he's every bit the buffoon he looks to be, but he's certainly stumbled onto a way he can win again in 2020, and that's by dominating every news cycle as he's been doing.

This ^^^^


Everybody knows it can’t happen without an act of Congress except the 40 million of his base, and the chattering

Lo

[kalm]

That why asked my question.

And I’ve made it very clear I don’t support it. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

Why don’t you support it?

[AZGrizFan]

And I’ve made it very clear I don’t support it. What part of that is so difficult to understand?

Why don’t you support it?

What difference does it make? But I’m not a fan of ANY politician thinking they can just change the constitution with the stroke of their pen. If Trump truly wants to end it he needs to go through the same process as the dipshits who want to end the 2A. And that’s never going to happen....so all the mouthbreathing Trump haters just have something else to occupy their tiny little minds....

[kalm]

Why don’t you support it?

What difference does it make? But I’m not a fan of ANY politician thinking they can just change the constitution with the stroke of their pen. If Trump truly wants to end it he needs to go through the same process as the dipshits who want to end the 2A. And that’s never going to happen....so all the mouthbreathing Trump haters just have something else to occupy their tiny little minds....

So you support the idea just not the method? The idea seems like something you’d support.

[AZGrizFan]

What difference does it make? But I’m not a fan of ANY politician thinking they can just change the constitution with the stroke of their pen. If Trump truly wants to end it he needs to go through the same process as the dipshits who want to end the 2A. And that’s never going to happen....so all the mouthbreathing Trump haters just have something else to occupy their tiny little minds....

So you support the idea just not the method? The idea seems like something you’d support.

No. I support neither the idea but ESPECIALLY not the method.

[∞∞∞]

I leaned early in my career that exaggeration is fatal to a coherent argument, legal or otherwise.

Maybe in the court room, but exaggeration and hyperbole changes worlds. If anything, it's one of the most powerful tools humans have to alter laws.

[∞∞∞]

So you support the idea just not the method? The idea seems like something you’d support.

No. I support neither the idea but ESPECIALLY not the method.

So when Trump issues the executive order, you'll defend your "oath"?

[CID1990]

I'm not saying trade policy is unconstitutional.

I'm saying the Trade War has accomplished as much as he has by this latest tuft of wind.

Is this thread only about constitutionality?

No, you are OPINING that the trade war hasn't accomplished anything. And like I have said before, it might not.

But as you continue with this false headed attempt to inject an argument you think you can win I'll remind you that there is no equivalency to my comments on the trade war and Trump spitballing about Greenland.

[kalm]

So you support the idea just not the method? The idea seems like something you’d support.

No. I support neither the idea but ESPECIALLY not the method.

Why should the child born of people who illegally crossed our borders be automatically given citizenship?

[AZGrizFan]

No. I support neither the idea but ESPECIALLY not the method.

Why should the child born of people who illegally crossed our borders be automatically given citizenship?

You mean besides the fact it’s the law as currently written?

[CID1990]

No. I support neither the idea but ESPECIALLY not the method.

Why should the child born of people who illegally crossed our borders be automatically given citizenship?

In practice? Because the Constitution, supported by SCOTUS ruling, does not place conditions on jus soli citizenship.

In theory, it would be exceedingly difficult to enforce if we made it a rule - right now you just need a US birth cert. Trying to get your parents’ proof of legal status would be difficult for many people and would create an adjudicatory nightmare.

That said, the entitlement to status by birth in the US to people illegally in the US has not been tested specifically.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CitadelGrad]

No. I support neither the idea but ESPECIALLY not the method.

Why should the child born of people who illegally crossed our borders be automatically given citizenship?

They shouldn't, but that isn't my primary concern. My concern is the Chinese. Knocked up chinks fly into California and our Pacific possessions every day to take the bun out of the oven, then fly back to China with their slanty eyed Yankee Doodle Dandy rug rats. They do so with the encouragement of the Chinese government. Any ideas why China might be encouraging this?

[Ivytalk]

No. I support neither the idea but ESPECIALLY not the method.

Why should the child born of people who illegally crossed our borders be automatically given citizenship?

When you think about it, being born here may be the purest “Occam’s razor” citizenship test that could be devised. It’s one area where I’ve actually mellowed over the years. The real test is to keep the illegal parents out, by some combination of border security (ncluding barbed wire and machine gun nests) and prosecuting employers of illegals.

[kalm]

Why should the child born of people who illegally crossed our borders be automatically given citizenship?

When you think about it, being born here may be the purest “Occam’s razor” citizenship test that could be devised. It’s one area where I’ve actually mellowed over the years. The real test is to keep the illegal parents out, by some combination of border security (ncluding barbed wire and machine gun nests) and prosecuting employers of illegals.

You and CID make sense.