Trump to End Birthright Citizenship

[AZGrizFan]

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.

[Ibanez]

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

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

The trade war has certainly produced results.


Not all good.

[Ibanez]

The proper answer to this "idea" is - it won't happen. Anyone spending more than 2 minutes defending or fighting this idea needs to go sit in a dark room for a while.

[Ivytalk]

You and CID make sense.

You have mastered a wide array of emojis.

[Ibanez]

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.

Someone has been on Wikipedia....

[Ibanez]

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.

The 2nd is pretty damn clear as well

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

We just disagree on which arms. Which is valid, IMO.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

The 2nd is pretty damn clear as well

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

We just disagree on which arms. Which is valid, IMO.

No, it's not. ARMS. Period. There is no qualification, no clarification, no limitation.

ARMS. It's JUST as clear as the 14th. And even more pertinent.

[89Hen]

Agreed. We've already been to war with North Korea and Iran and seen gay rights stripped away. What next?

And yes, we have seen an erosion of gay rights. But since it doesn't affect you, you don't pay attention.

As for NK and Iran, Trump's actions have made the world a more dangerous place, especially with those two.

All three are nothing burgers Jon and you know it.

[AZGrizFan]

And yes, we have seen an erosion of gay rights. But since it doesn't affect you, you don't pay attention.

As for NK and Iran, Trump's actions have made the world a more dangerous place, especially with those two.

All three are nothing burgers Jon and you know it.

Not according to the talking points HE received this morning in his email....

[89Hen]

All three are nothing burgers Jon and you know it.

Not according to the talking points HE received this morning in his email....

I'm sure Huff Po has some giant bold headline about it.

[Ibanez]

The 2nd is pretty damn clear as well




We just disagree on which arms. Which is valid, IMO.

No, it's not. ARMS. Period. There is no qualification, no clarification, no limitation.

ARMS. It's JUST as clear as the 14th. And even more pertinent.

Agree to disagree. I don't understand why you would need a .50 cal but to each their own.

[Skjellyfetti]

No, it's not. ARMS. Period. There is no qualification, no clarification, no limitation.

ARMS. It's JUST as clear as the 14th. And even more pertinent.

The problem you have there is that SCOTUS has ruled differently since the 19th century.

[CitadelGrad]

No, it's not. ARMS. Period. There is no qualification, no clarification, no limitation.

ARMS. It's JUST as clear as the 14th. And even more pertinent.

Agree to disagree. I don't understand why you would need a .50 cal but to each their own.

It isn't a matter of need. It's a matter of want.

[CitadelGrad]

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 forgot land mines. Machine guns have to be manned 24/7 to be effective. Land mines are passive but very effective.

[Chizzang]

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?

Can confirm

[GannonFan]

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?

So much history wrong in just one sentence. The Electoral College actually allows tyranny of the minority, as we've been told by the Democrats who only find out after the election that we're still using the Electoral College and that it's possible to win in the EC while not winning in the popular vote. As for who devised it, the credit normally goes to a PA guy (i.e. not a classical slave state) and it was really more of a way to protect the smaller states from the bigger states. In that regard, it worked against the slave states (Madison, a slaver, was a huge proponent of just popular vote since that would've helped VA as a slave state). The thing that the slave states got that cemented their power in the early USA was the 3/5's clause for the counting of slaves. Propping up their population with even a fraction of the population that they otherwise treated as property was the kicker that tilted power towards the slave states at the onset of the country.

[Ivytalk]

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?

You mean a bicameral legislature?

Jesus, Jon, you really have gone around the bend.

[89Hen]

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

You mean a bicameral legislature?

Jesus, Jon, you really have gone around the bend.

What are you talking about? He's more in the center than anyone on the right on this board.

[AZGrizFan]

Agree to disagree. I don't understand why you would need a .50 cal but to each their own.

It isn't a matter of need. It's a matter of want.

[CID1990]

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?

Can confirm

Want to REALLY be pissed?

Coming to the US with the express intent of having a child is a legitimate use of a B1/B2 tourist visa, which is specifically for tourism, short business trips, and medical care.

All the applicant has to do is overcome Section 214(b) of the INA.

China isn’t the only country with runaway birth tourism to the US.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Can confirm

Want to REALLY be pissed?

Coming to the US with the express intent of having a child is a legitimate use of a B1/B2 tourist visa, which is specifically for tourism, short business trips, and medical care.

All the applicant has to do is overcome Section 214(b) of the INA.

China isn’t the only country with runaway birth tourism to the US.

Yup... India too

[CID1990]

Want to REALLY be pissed?

Coming to the US with the express intent of having a child is a legitimate use of a B1/B2 tourist visa, which is specifically for tourism, short business trips, and medical care.

All the applicant has to do is overcome Section 214(b) of the INA.

China isn’t the only country with runaway birth tourism to the US.

Yup... India too

And Nigeria. Around 100,000 US citizen minors in the Lagos consular district.

One key to overcoming the presumption of immigrant intent to qualify for a visa for the purpose of giving birth in the US is to show you have the financial resources to pay for the hospital expenses.

So do you think super cheap birthing centers have popped up to cater to these people?

Yes, of course!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Amend the Constitution or STFU

[CitadelGrad]

Amend the Constitution or STFU

No need to amend it. The Constitution is a living document.

And you can STFU regardless of any constitutional amendments.

[CID1990]

No need to amend it. The Constitution is a living document.

And you can STFU regardless of any constitutional amendments.

It is NOT a living document according to Conservatives!

Sure it is - the ability to change it is specifically built into it

Re-interpreting it from the bench is what actual conservatives have a problem with. Follow the rules.