Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 30, 2018

President Donald Trump says he plans to sign an executive order that would end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil. It's unclear if the President has the authority to strip citizenship of those born in the US with an executive order, and he did not say when he would sign the order.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

It's unclear if the President has the authority to strip citizenship of those born in the US with an executive order, and he did not say when he would sign the order ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Election must be close...

#1 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-10-30 07:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hmm... I kinda goofed up the summary. My bad.

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-10-30 07:57 AM | Reply

So now the tin horn dictator says he can defy the Constitution. Good luck with that you fat orange monster. To go against the right to citizenship that virtually every single one of us depended on for our citizenship is unAmerican. We are a melting pot because of birthright citizenship, take that away and we would just be a pretender. Pull down the Statue of Liberty.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-30 08:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Ending birthright citizenship is a great idea, but will probably take an amendment. It's utterly absurd to give citizenship to a tourist's baby.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 08:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#4

That's right. An Amendment. Because it's "probably" in the Constitution.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-30 08:53 AM | Reply

I haven't yet seen a more dictatorial statement from this neo-fascist president.

He won't get away with it. But he's got people "telling him" he can. If he manages the balls to try it, that's your dictatorship.

#6 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-30 08:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

You "probably" people are the most shallow and dangerous of Americans.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-30 09:00 AM | Reply

"That's right. An Amendment. Because it's "probably" in the Constitution.

#5 | Posted by Zed

This thread is where the "living constitution" advocates become originalists and vice-versa.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 09:15 AM | Reply

This thread is where the "living constitution" advocates become originalists and vice-versa.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 09

No, this is the thread where people object to be being ruled by fiat.

I'm having trouble deciding what hag-rides the Right more these days, intellectual cowardice or moral cowardice.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-30 09:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You people won't mind a dictator as long as it's someone like Trump. That's the most fundamental political truth of the modern era.

#10 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-30 09:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't think he can do it, unless the executive order is used to narrowly define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

I'm not saying that ending birthright citizenship for children born to non-citizens isn't a good idea....it IS a good idea....but this is not the way.

#11 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 09:25 AM | Reply

My first thought is that he can't do this because of the 14th Amendment, but my second thought is that lots of constitutional rights that seem to me to be clearly established in the text have been interpreted away over the years. Hey, it's a living Constitution, right? It must be informed by experience, and the needs of the day!

UPDATE: Am I kidding? Yes, and no. The Supreme Court precedent here doesn't involve illegal immigrants and you can make a good argument that in adopting this rule the President is acting in a foreign affairs capaicty -- since he's trying to discourage people abroad from coming here -- and that gets a lot of judicial deference. Here's some quick discussion of the law. I can certainly imagine a Supreme Court opinion holding that the core purpose of the birthright citizenry provision was to guarantee the citizenship of freed slaves, something not applicable here, and that the destabilizing effect of mass migration (see Europe), along with the foreign affairs component, demonstrates that the issue is best dealt with by the political branches

pjmedia.com

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 09:26 AM | Reply

There is no way he can do this with an EO. That being said, I am for amending how birth right citizenship is granted. It is my opinion that at least one parent signing the birth certificate should have to be a US citizen in order for birth right citizenship to be granted. I never understood why it hadn't been changed once it was clearly being taken advantage of. It is not only our neighbors to the south that come here to deliver, I dont want anyone to get the impression that I feel that way. There are resorts that target mothers in other countries to "vacation" here and deliver so their child has US citizenship. How many other countries hand out citizenship the way we do?

#13 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 09:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

#9 Ruled by fiat sounds a lot like "I've got a pen and I've got a phone", doesn't it? It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 09:28 AM | Reply

More Nazi pandering.

Whadda surprise.

#15 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 09:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#9 Ruled by fiat sounds a lot like "I've got a pen and I've got a phone", doesn't it?

#14 | Posted by MUSTANG at

No, actually, it doesn't.

But I won't quibble. You and I agree on something.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-30 09:34 AM | Reply

--More Nazi pandering.

I didn't expect any intelligent discussion of this issue. Just hysteria.

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 09:37 AM | Reply

Ending birthright citizenship is a great idea, but will probably take an amendment. It's utterly absurd to give citizenship to a tourist's baby.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 08:31 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

While Trump is at it, maybe he can make it retro and we can send Bob Jindal back to India?

#18 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-10-30 09:46 AM | Reply

Just hysteria.

#17 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT

You wish it was hysteria, and you misspelled everyone realizes the Nazi coddler is pandering to his Nazi base on the eve of an election that he's about to get his *** handed to him in and there is nothing here to see.

It's a hail Mary.

Unfortunately for you it won't work.

#19 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 09:53 AM | Reply

--we can send Bob Jindal back to India?

Haven't heard Hindi Jindi mentioned in a long time. Thought he passed away.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 09:53 AM | Reply

Thought he passed away.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 09:53 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

Nope. He got elected governor of Louisiana then made a half hearted attempt at a presidential run. Far as I know he's still running around south Louisiana.

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-10-30 09:54 AM | Reply

Bob Jindal back to India?

O18 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Piyush Jindal had his official portrait painted in white face.

He's here to stay.

#22 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 09:55 AM | Reply

Is this the rrrriiiiiggggghhhhttttt finally admitting that pedophiles who owned slaves probably didn't come up with the best ideas on how things should go?

#23 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Larry Lefty: We should be more like Europe.

Ricky Righty: No European countries grant birthright citizenship.

Larry Lefty: We should be less like Europe.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 10:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

It would be ironic if he called it something like Deferred Action on Documentation of Arrivals

#25 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 10:18 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

It would be ironic if he called it something like Deferred Action on Documentation of Arrivals

#25 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Or if he was just honest and said "I need Nazis to vote so here's this stupid idea that will never happen."

#26 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 10:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"How many other countries hand out citizenship the way we do?"

Pretty much everywhere in North and South American, plus Pakistan.

Chad also allows birthright citizenship, but the child has to choose between that and their parents' citizenship when they turn 18.

#27 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 10:25 AM | Reply

Larry Lefty: We should be less like Europe.

#24 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIA

The Eurozone has open borders. Not gonna appease the Nazis with that.

Try again.

#28 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 10:30 AM | Reply

#27 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

True, but when you limit it to "developed" countries as defined by the International Monetary Fund there are only 2: US and Canada....

#29 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 10:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"It is not only our neighbors to the south that come here to deliver, I dont want anyone to get the impression that I feel that way. There are resorts that target mothers in other countries to "vacation" here and deliver so their child has US citizenship."

It's definitely being abused by the Chinese, and Europeans as well. But anyone who thinks isn't also a huge motivator for people from the south to cluster together and form a human spearhead is just kidding themselves.

#30 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 10:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--The Eurozone has open borders

Yeah, that's been a great success. Just ask Angela Merkel, who will be known forever for her disastrous mass migration policies and will soon be unemployed.

#31 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 10:35 AM | Reply

The EU is then "Schengen Area", and it has only existed since 1995. Open, internal region borders is relatively common in a federation through history. It's also unrelated to lightly controlled national borders, which are only popular when an industrial country needs workers (ex: Germany post-ww2) and become unpopular and is switched to tightly controlled immigration once the need is met. Historic trends mirror what is going on here now.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-10-30 10:38 AM | Reply

No, this is the thread where people object to be being ruled by fiat.

Oh, you mean like when Obama did EO's? I didnt hear you liberals mentioning that it was being ruled by fiat then.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 10:41 AM | Reply

Trump can wipe out language in the constitution by signing an executive order? Good to know.

#34 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2018-10-30 10:42 AM | Reply

And speaking of Europe...

My son was born in France. His foot was born on the soil there. He was granted French citizenship for 10 years, after which he needed to reapply if he wanted to stay a citizen.

Yet, here in the U.S., anchor babies are given citizenship forever. Even Europe doesnt do it like we do.

#35 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 10:43 AM | Reply

Trump eyeing executive order to end birthright citizenship, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution

Whether the move is legal, Trump seemed to welcome the controversy his comments ignited. The White House has been intent on stoking a debate over immigration as a way to motivate Trump's base to turn out for midterm elections in which Republicans risk losing the House.

www.msn.com

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 10:55 AM | Reply

I'd bet a lot on it not being legal. I'm intrigued by the mental gymnastics though, can't get enough of this train wreck.

#37 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-10-30 10:56 AM | Reply

From a legal standpoint this can't be done with an EO and if Trump moves with this he'd likely see a very swift court injunction.

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 10:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Almost EVERY other nation has some form of restricted birthright citizenship.

Only the ones with unrestricted are the crappy countries..

en.wikipedia.org

#39 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 10:57 AM | Reply

"Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio were the principal authors of the citizenship clauses in both the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Trumbull stated that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, which means "[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else." Senator Howard agreed that "jurisdiction" meant a full and complete jurisdiction, the same "in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now." Children born to Indian parents with tribal allegiances were therefore necessarily excluded from birthright citizenship, and explicit exclusion was unnecessary. This reasoning would seem also to exclude birthright citizenship for the children of legal resident aliens and, a fortiori, of illegal aliens. It appears, therefore, that the Constitution, far from clearly compelling the grant of birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, is better understood as denying the grant. "

www.nationalreview.com

#40 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 10:59 AM | Reply

Since the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland was enacted in 2004, no European country grants citizenship based on unconditional or near-unconditional jus soli.[8][9]

Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant citizenship at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis (right of blood), in which citizenship is inherited through parents not by birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which citizenship by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants.

So why in the hell are we doing it?

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 11:02 AM | Reply

If Trump can undo birthright citizenship with an EO, does that mean some future president could re-instate it with one?

#42 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 11:06 AM | Reply

#42 Yep. It's the inherent weakness to ruling by fiat. Ask Obama.

#43 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 11:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you are against birthright citizenship you are then against your own birthright citizenship. If you are for this then you are a bigot PERIOD.

#44 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

So why in the hell are we doing it?
#41 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-10-30 11:02 AM | REPLY

Because the Constitution says we do, and we are governed first and foremost by the Constitution. Didn't you... you know... take an oath to defend the Constitution? Until another amendment is passed to strip out the language in the 14th amendment, Birthright Citizenship is the law.

#45 | Posted by bartimus at 2018-10-30 11:15 AM | Reply

#44 Bullcrap. That argument is weak sauce and you damned well know better.

#46 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 11:15 AM | Reply

"Trump:end birthright citizenship via executive order"

This is a distraction. Whoever put Trump up to it doesn't think it's a fight he'll win. They think it'll pair well with the -------- "migrant caravan" narrative to stir up his racist moron base before the elections.

#47 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-10-30 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Almost EVERY other nation has some form of restricted birthright citizenship." - #39 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© at 2018-10-30 10:57 AM
"So why in the hell are we doing it?" - #41 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© at 2018-10-30 11:02 AM
Interesting how pfc. boazotoes' default position is "FY" to every other country.

That America is always better than every other country in the world.

Hypocrisy much?

#48 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 11:17 AM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-10-30 10:59 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

That is a very narrow definition; I would anticipate that most legal scholars today don't agree with that interpretation. Regardless, you'd have to get the courts to agree to that very narrow definition as well, and I doubt even the current makeup of the SCOTUS would adopt that definition (I doubt Roberts would side with the narrow definition on this one).

Nope, birthright citizenship won't be removed by the courts or an EO, it'll take an amendment.

#49 | Posted by bartimus at 2018-10-30 11:18 AM | Reply

#44 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

That is a ridiculous argument. I used to really agree with you on many things Laura and have been around since 2010, but feel like you have come undone lately. Things have changed in the many years since birthright citizenship was enacted. As things change it becomes necessary to review our laws as other countries have done. I am all for legal immigration, and we allow more than a million people to immigrate here each year. Compare that to Canada's numbers. I am also for anyone that becomes a US citizen, or has a child with a US citizen, passing that citizenship onto their children. But to allow vacationing tourists to deliver here for the sole purpose of citizenship status to the baby is taking it too far.

#50 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 11:21 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#44 Bullcrap. That argument is weak sauce and you damned well know better.

#46 | POSTED BY MUSTANG GT

That's her M.O. these days. Offer nothing of substance, pretty much ever, and then just castigate everybody she disagrees with as a bigot.

It's pathetic and boring.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#44 Bullcrap. That argument is weak sauce and you damned well know better.

#46 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2018-10-30 11:15 AM | FLAG:

No Sit I'm on solid footing here. The only time this is bandied about is when brown people are born here. You don't see nor hear the clamor when white people are born here. NEVER EVER.

#52 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:22 AM | Reply

The problem with birthright citizenship is that it's abused in ways never intended when the 14th was passed. Also, it's not codified in the Amendment itself but in 60+ years of legal interpretation. Congress can enact a statute putting an end to it but it's too far ingrained to be undone with an EO IMO.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 11:24 AM | Reply

"44 Bullcrap. That argument is weak sauce and you damned well know better."

I don't think she does. Laura is not Logic's strong point.

#54 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 11:24 AM | Reply

JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO Read number 52 and tell me that's not true.

#55 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:24 AM | Reply

See what I mean, 'Stang?

It's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who peddles exclusively in straw man arguments.

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 11:25 AM | Reply

#52 Your argument is that anyone who immigrated to what is now the US prior to the passage of the 14th is here legally, but that everyone else is here illegally?? Just asking for a friend.

#57 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 11:26 AM | Reply

#52 Your argument is that anyone who immigrated to what is now the US prior to the passage of the 14th is here legally, but that everyone else is here illegally?? Just asking for a friend.

#57 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2018-10-30 11:26 AM | FLAG:

We live under the 14th Amendment now. Any question about prior to the 14th is a deflection dear. Stick with what is going on now to be intellectually honest.

#58 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:29 AM | Reply

#55 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

It is not true. Perhaps that is when it is most publicly brought again into the open, but I am all for ending birthright citizenship to the children without a single US citizen parent quite vocally at all times in history. It is not only the "brown people" that abuse it. I have clearly stated that there are resorts targeting people from many other countries to come deliver here. Most of that is the Chinese but it happens all over. Our system is being abused but I will agree that the only time it is used as a political distraction is when someone needs to rile up the redneck base.

#59 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 11:29 AM | Reply

I am all for legal immigration, and we allow more than a million people to immigrate here each year. Compare that to Canada's numbers. I am also for anyone that becomes a US citizen, or has a child with a US citizen, passing that citizenship onto their children. But to allow vacationing tourists to deliver here for the sole purpose of citizenship status to the baby is taking it too far.

#50 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-10-30 11:21 AM | FLAG:

BTW There really is no such thing as illegal immigration when our economy relies heavily upon their labours.

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:30 AM | Reply

#58 That's not what you said, sweetie.

If you are against birthright citizenship you are then against your own birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship did not exist until the 14th, so it is implied in your statement. My question stands, sugarplum.

#61 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 11:32 AM | Reply

"during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation's geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes and not to the U.S. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported this view, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States."

www.nationalreview.com

If the amendment did not give Native Americans birthright citizenship, it's hard to see it giving it to tourists, visa holders, illegal immigrants, etc.

#62 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 11:33 AM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

This is another dead end argument with you, one which I will not engage.

#63 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 11:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#60 Federal law disagrees with you, darlin.

#64 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 11:33 AM | Reply

Most of that is the Chinese but it happens all over. Our system is being abused but I will agree that the only time it is used as a political distraction is when someone needs to rile up the redneck base.

#59 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-10-30 11:29 AM | FLAG:

You know it's ironic you mention the Chinese considering we have given the Chinese the shaft since the mid 1800's. BTW The 14th Amendment reads Any person. It does not say any person born to an American citizen. Until that's changed they get birthright citizenship. PERIOD.

#65 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:35 AM | Reply

"If the amendment did not give Native Americans birthright citizenship, it's hard to see it giving it to tourists, visa holders, illegal immigrants, etc." - #62 | Posted by nulliquisling at 2018-10-30 11:33 AM

"Federal law disagrees with you, darlin." - #64 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 11:33 AM

#66 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 11:37 AM | Reply

#65 Isn't that the point of this discussion, sugar?

#67 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is another dead end argument with you, one which I will not engage.

#63 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-10-30 11:33 AM | FLAG:

No it's factually accurate. You can't deem them illegal if you reap the rewards of their labour.

#68 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

" Until that's changed they get birthright citizenship."

Well yes, that's why people are arguing about whether to change it and how to change it.

"PERIOD."

Are you on it now?

#69 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 11:40 AM | Reply

#65 Isn't that the point of this discussion, sugar?

#67 | POSTED BY MUSTANG AT 2018-10-30 11:37 AM | FLAG:

You mean that racism continues to this day and racism towards birthright citizenship continues into the 21st century.

#70 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:41 AM | Reply

#60 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR
This is another dead end argument with you, one which I will not engage.

#63 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO

As Hans is sometimes known to say, it is sad that I only have one newsworthy flag to give your post.

#71 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#70, really you're comparing people who were subject to slavery on U.S. soil to tourists and --------? Shame on you.

#72 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 11:45 AM | Reply

#70 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

As I stated above, I believe you have become undone. I am pretty liberal in a lot of things, and in no way racist. The whitest person in Africa/Europe/Ireland wherever could vacation here and have a baby on our soil and I still dont believe it should qualify the child to have citizenship any longer. I literally could not care less where they are from. All other developed countries except for us and Canada have already made this change.

#73 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 11:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"You can't deem them illegal if you reap the rewards of their labour."

You sound like the type of person who knowingly buys stolen goods.

#74 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 11:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

As I stated above, I believe you have become undone. I am pretty liberal in a lot of things, and in no way racist. The whitest person in Africa/Europe/Ireland wherever could vacation here and have a baby on our soil and I still dont believe it should qualify the child to have citizenship any longer. I literally could not care less where they are from. All other developed countries except for us and Canada have already made this change.

#73 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-10-30 11:46 AM | FLAG:

Then change the 14th and you'll have my support. Until then a child that's born here is a US Citizen.

#75 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:48 AM | Reply

oh boy

here we go

nothing says, "I love America" and "let's come together" quite like reanimating some good ole' civil war animosity.

And as we can see here, there are many "not racists" who are way too eager to oblige

shameless politics perpetuated by shameless people

#76 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-10-30 11:49 AM | Reply

#75 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR -- I don't disagree with changing it. That has been my point from my very first post in this thread. I specifically said he cannot do this by EO but it needs to be changed. This is why you are hard to converse with.

#77 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Looks like Team Trump's trolling has worked exactly as it has intended. Whatever you think of Trump, he is a marketing genius.

#78 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 11:52 AM | Reply

Unless and until the decision in the Wong Kim Ark case is overturned, or the 14th Amendment is changed through the amendment process, this is all a moot point.

#79 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 11:53 AM | Reply

#75 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR -- I don't disagree with changing it. That has been my point from my very first post in this thread. I specifically said he cannot do this by EO but it needs to be changed. This is why you are hard to converse with.

POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-10-30 11:50 AM | REPLY

But then you cheapen your own birthright citizenship because you add qualifier to that. You can't get around that though.

#80 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 11:53 AM | Reply

The problem with birthright citizenship is that it's abused in ways never intended when the 14th was passed.

#53 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT

Wow.

another admission that the dead pedophiles who owned slaves might have been short sighted.

That's 2 today..

#81 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 11:54 AM | Reply

"Trump's trolling has worked"

When you're POTUS, it's not possible to troll.

#82 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-10-30 11:54 AM | Reply

Number of babies born in U.S. to unauthorized immigrants declines

About 295,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents in 2013, making up 8% of the 3.9 million U.S. births that year, according to a new, preliminary Pew Research Center estimate based on the latest available federal government data. This was a decline from a peak of 370,000 in 2007.

www.pewresearch.org

#83 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 11:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The tourist babies aren't the worst, and I'll tell you why. These little kids grow being proud of their American heritage. They go around telling everyone they're American and they love America.

Then they bring their parent's money to America.

#84 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-10-30 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Does that extend to other areas or does it only apply where xenophobia is involved?

#85 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-30 11:57 AM | Reply

"...--------?" - #72 | Posted by ϟwastika-worshiping ϟϟentinel at 2018-10-30 11:45 AM | Flag: At least he didn't call them "parasitic vermin"

#86 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 11:57 AM | Reply

#83 - That number seems very high!

300,000 (from unauth-im)/4,000,000 (total babies born in America each year) = 7.5% of all babies born in America???????

Then there is a problem.

#87 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-10-30 11:57 AM | Reply

--unauthorized immigrants

Love the euphemism.

#88 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 11:58 AM | Reply

#88 You want something more Halloween. Potential murder-rapist-tax-dogers-social-welfare-program-users-job-takers-brown-non-english-speaker-hard-
worker-family-focused-human-susceptible-to-illness-migrant-male-scary-aged-has-not-yet-filled-out-
paperwork-looking-for-a-better-life-aspirational-immigrants.

Did I get all the scary stuff?

#89 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-10-30 12:02 PM | Reply

talkingpointsmemo.com

Abandoning the simplicity of birthright citizenship would mean establishing a new system that would complicate the lives of all Americans, from birth to when the time comes to apply for Social Security benefits, experts tell TPM.

"It becomes this sort of paper chase, and who is going to police this? How do you know if a child born in a U.S. hospital is a citizen or not? Are we going to have ICE agents in a maternity ward?" said David Leopold, an immigration lawyer in Cleveland and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

"It's all lovely to say that we are only targeting people who are born to illegal parents, but what that means is that everyone has to show that their parents were not illegally present," Stock said. "If we want to administer this fairly, there are white people who have undocumented parents. So we can't just say that we are not going to check for people who are white, or African American or have American accents. You have to check for everybody."

#90 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 12:03 PM | Reply

#83 That's the number I'm finding:

Depending on whose calculation one uses, there are somewhere from 250,000 to 300,000 American-born children of undocumented parents each year. The Pew Research Center found that as of 2013, the median duration of residence for illegal immigrants living in the U.S. was 13 years; a full 88 percent had been living in the country for five years or more. This suggests that undocumented aliens have babies because they have already built lives--albeit in the shadows--in America, not in order to gain a toehold or legal anchor.

What's more, immigration levels consistently rise and fall with the availability of jobs, making all other factors subordinate. And the gender composition of parent-age (20- to 40-year-old) illegal immigrants tilts overwhelmingly male, not female, according to Pew.

www.thefreelibrary.com

#91 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 12:03 PM | Reply

"This thread is where the "living constitution" advocates become originalists and vice-versa."

Hardly. The original intent was to confer legal citizenship for the recently newly freed slaves and their offspring.

#92 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-30 12:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do not pretend to know whether or not he can, but do prefer the end of the non-citizens babies born here being instantly citizens as believe they remain citizens of their parents country rather than ours.

#93 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-10-30 12:09 PM | Reply

#90 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

We already have the ability to verify US citizenship for a job. Asking that I provide my and the fathers SS# and driver license number at the hospital should be very little additional trouble. They forms they ask you to complete already gather most of that information.

#94 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 12:10 PM | Reply

Do not pretend to know whether or not he can, but do prefer the end of the non-citizens babies born here being instantly citizens as believe they remain citizens of their parents country rather than ours.

POSTED BY MSGT AT 2018-10-30 12:09 PM | REPLY

Sorry but born here automatically grants citizenship. It only doesn't apply to diplomats and their immediate family members and heads of state and their immediate family members.

#95 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 12:12 PM | Reply

Anchor Babies' Are Mostly A Myth Anyway

The idea that women come to the country so that they can "drop and leave" American citizens is hardly based in reality. A 2011 Pew study found that 350,000 children were born to at least one unauthorized-immigrant parent in 2009, but that 61 percent of those parents arrived in the U.S. before 2004, 30 percent arrived from 2004 and 2007, and only 9 percent arrived from 2008 and 2010.

What's more, it would be a "long con" type of situation since citizen children can't sponsor parents until they turn 21. A 2010 Politifact article pointed out that parents must return home for ten years before applying to come in if they were ever undocumented, so "having a baby to secure citizenship for its parents is an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."

thinkprogress.org

#96 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 12:12 PM | Reply

"We already have the ability to verify US citizenship for a job. Asking that I provide my and the fathers SS# and driver license number at the hospital should be very little additional trouble. They forms they ask you to complete already gather most of that information."

What's your plan for how to handle the mother and baby who can't provide that information?

#97 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 12:15 PM | Reply

This isn't Trump trolling; this is Trump saying he will try to follow through on one of his campaign promises without having to change the Constitution:

The GOP presidential campaign kicked off with real estate mogul Donald Trump's incendiary remarks about Mexican immigrants being rapists and drug dealers, and quickly evolved to endorsements of changing the Constitution to strip millions of immigrants of their citizenship. Now, presidential candidates have a new angle on the immigration debate: Targeting the children of foreign-born parents as so-called "anchor babies."

The term "anchor babies" has long been relegated to the realm of ultra-conservative arguments against allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the country. But recently, the phrase has been widely used by Republican lawmakers as part of a clarion call to repeal the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to every child born on U.S. soil, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

thinkprogress.org

#98 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 12:20 PM | Reply

If Trump thinks he can overturn the 14th Amendment, why would he stop there? What if he goes after the 1st and maybe the 4th, 5th and 6th as well? And I'm sure that some of his supporters would like to do away with at least the 15th, maybe even the 13th.

OCU

#99 | Posted by OCUser at 2018-10-30 12:20 PM | Reply

#62 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-10-30 11:33 AM | FLAG:

It's an interesting argument. Looking back at what may have constituted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", many legal scholars in the mid to late 1800's believed that if an individual was taxed, they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and eligible for citizenship. Since undocumented immigrants are also subject to being taxed (as well as subject to all other laws of the US/State they reside in), I don't see them falling into the same category as Native Americans.

Perhaps Congress could legislatively declare (i.e. pass a law) that the 14th Amendment didn't apply to undocumented immigrants, but I just don't see that happening, especially with 60 Senators needed to get anything done legislatively. Even if passed it'd be challenged immediately in the courts, as would the aforementioned EO.

#100 | Posted by bartimus at 2018-10-30 12:22 PM | Reply

#96 and yet statistics say that 8% to 10% of all births are to illegal aliens.

#101 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-10-30 12:22 PM | Reply

Just one example of Birth Tourism .

Earlier this year I recall reading an article that claimed Russians are flocking to Miami to give birth. Something like the weather is better and it guarantees a US Passport for their children in the future. It also poked fun at Trump because several were staying at a hotel with his name on it although he is against chain migration. I am not going to search for it. I have other work to head off to. You all have fun ^_^

#102 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 12:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Earlier this year I recall reading an article that claimed Russians are flocking to Miami to give birth."

I remember that too.

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 12:28 PM | Reply

Trump because several were staying at a hotel with his name on it although he is against chain migration. I am not going to search for it. I have other work to head off to. You all have fun ^_^

POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-10-30 12:25 PM | REPLY

No he's not against it. His in-laws say you're wrong.

#104 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 12:28 PM | Reply

"Top Minds of the Retort whose entire identities are based on the immutability of the Constitution discuss changing the Constitution to keep brown people out."

#105 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-10-30 12:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"#96 and yet statistics say that 8% to 10% of all births are to illegal aliens."

Nothing in that post contradicts the 8-ish% figure. The info in that post is indicating that the majority of anchor babies aren't born to mothers who recently crossed the border, but rather ones who have been living in the shadows in the US for a number of years.

#106 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 12:33 PM | Reply

it's not codified in the Amendment itself but in 60+ years of legal interpretation.

--------. The 14th Amendment states:

"All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States."

It doesn't take "60 years of legal interpretation" to read that the clause above allows anyone born in the US to be a citizen. It literally says "all persons born in the US are citizens of the US."

You and Trump may have a beef with that as a policy, but let's not lie about what the Constitution says, mmkay?

#107 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Top Minds of the Retort whose entire identities are based on the immutability of the Constitution discuss changing the Constitution to keep brown people out."

POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE AT 2018-10-30 12:29 PM | REPLY

Happens EVERY TIME people south of the border is mentioned. Same thing occurred during Dubya's reign.

#108 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 12:44 PM | Reply

"The info in that post is indicating that the majority of anchor babies aren't born to mothers who recently crossed the border, but rather ones who have been living in the shadows in the US for a number of years."

These likely aren't one child families.

#109 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 12:45 PM | Reply

This isn't going to happen

Just some politicaly expidient race baiting for the racist base just in time for elections

#110 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-10-30 12:50 PM | Reply

As I stated above, I believe you have become undone. I am pretty liberal in a lot of things, and in no way racist. The whitest person in Africa/Europe/Ireland wherever could vacation here and have a baby on our soil and I still dont believe it should qualify the child to have citizenship any longer. I literally could not care less where they are from. All other developed countries except for us and Canada have already made this change.

#73 | POSTED BY JUSTAGIRL_IDAHO AT 2018-10-30 11:46 AM | FLAG:

youtu.be

#111 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 12:51 PM | Reply

"many legal scholars in the mid to late 1800's believed that if an individual was taxed, they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and eligible for citizenship"

Were they talking about automatic citizenship, or elibility to apply for citizenship?

#112 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-30 12:51 PM | Reply

"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."

Do you reside in the US? Is the first part of the sentence the only factor? No, as many will state you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof the US. SO, does the last part of the sentence matter? Apparently, probably.

That would then require the definition of residing in the State.

Are people hiding from authorities to prevent deportation residing in the States?

IMO, if you are come to the US say by plane from Europe, step out of the airport into a taxi and give birth, you are not residing in the US and therefore citizenship is not conferred upon you.

#113 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-30 12:52 PM | Reply

Trump needs a distraction from this lawsuit against him and his kids:

Trump Persuaded Struggling People to Invest in Scams, Lawsuit Says

www.nytimes.com

#114 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-brown people

Chinese mothers are brown? Russian mothers are brown? The things you learn on the retort.

#115 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 01:04 PM | Reply

Ironic seeing as "melanie" is technically an anchor baby.

#116 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-30 01:06 PM | Reply

Making threats, and then demanding praise as being benevolent for not carrying them out.

I can see why the Republicans love and respect this guy so much.

He exudes their core values.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 01:16 PM | Reply

From USA TODAY

www.usatoday.com

"Those numbers represented a drop from the peak years of illegal immigration, topped in 2006 when about 370,000 children were born to undocumented immigrants, or 9 percent of the population, according to the Pew estimate.

The vast majority of those births, however, were not a result of pregnant women crossing the border. Data from Pew shows that 90 percent of undocumented immigrants who give birth in the U.S. arrived in the country more than two years before giving birth.

Those numbers do not include pregnant mothers who obtain visas to travel to the U.S. shortly before giving birth. Russians routinely fly to South Florida, and there is an entire industry in China designed to coach pregnant women on how to deal with U.S. immigration authorities so they can enter the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth to American citizens.

Mexicans also contribute a large share: 21 percent of births in Arizona in 2014 were to undocumented immigrants, and 25 percent of births in Texas"

#118 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2018-10-30 01:17 PM | Reply

Sorry but born here automatically grants citizenship. It only doesn't apply to diplomats and their immediate family members and heads of state and their immediate family members.

#95 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2018-10-30 12:12 PM | FLAG: I understand that and it is the law of the land - however, the original intent of the Amendment as opposed to how it is applied now are two different things. I would prefer to see it changed.

#119 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-10-30 01:17 PM | Reply

Trump is just gaslighting his gullible base in time for an election. But It illustrates how today's "conservative" is under the impression they can better their lives by denying others the opportunity to better their lives

Because they can compete, or some ----

In reality, they just think they are entitled to something for nothing

#120 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-10-30 01:18 PM | Reply

The difference between the Chinese and Russians who come to give birth and those from Latin America is their level of wealth.

Roman Bokeria, the state director of the Florida Association of Realtors told NBC News that Trump- branded buildings in the Sunny Isles Beach area north of Miami are particularly popular with the Russian birth tourists and Russian immigrants.

"Sunny Isles beach has a nickname -- Little Russia -- because people who are moving from Russian-speaking countries to America, they want ... a familiar environment."

"They go across the street, they have Russian market, Russian doctor, Russian lawyer," he added. "It's very comfortable for them."

Reshetova came to Miami to have her first child, hiring an agency to help arrange her trip. The services -- which can include finding apartments and doctors and obtaining visas -- don't come cheap. She expects to pay close to $50,000, and some packages run as high as $100,000. Bokeria says some landlords ask for six months rent up front.

www.nbcnews.com

#121 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 01:20 PM | Reply

It's intent was to deny a mob of -------- the ability to discriminate

Plain and Simple
How is that for "original intent"

#122 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-10-30 01:21 PM | Reply

"These {Asians} are usually relatively well-off couples, the vast majority from China, who come to America legally on tourist visas and shell out some $50,000 for their medical bills. Only 35,000 or so can afford to do this every year. They come partly to score U.S. citizenship for their children, partly to enjoy better medical facilities, and partly to escape China's one-child quota--Beijing's autocrats don't count kids born with other nationalities against a couple's strict allowance."

www.thefreelibrary.com

#123 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 01:22 PM | Reply

Remember when Obama was going to change the constitution with a stroke of the pen?

Me neither

I do remember someone chortling "constitutionally crises" every other day, though

Haven't seen that since Trump was elected. I guess actually articulating an attack on the constitution doesn't warrant any concern from the DR constitutional "experts"

#124 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-10-30 01:32 PM | Reply

Joe,

Please read here:

In a nutshell, the 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." The highlighted term, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was understood at the time of adoption to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign. To take the obvious example, if a child is born in France to a married couple who are both American citizens, the child is an American citizen.

(emphasis in original)

www.nationalreview.com

In the summer issue of National Affairs, two distinguished scholars of the Constitution (one of whom, Rogers Smith, is also the president of the American Political Science Association this year) took up the matter, and came to the same conclusion Andy does: The Constitution does not decisively resolve the question, and actually leaves it open to Congress, but not to the president acting on his own. "Birthright citizenship," they write, "is a legitimate political and policy question, and a hard one." But that does not make it a question open to resolution by executive action.

(emphasis mine)

www.nationalreview.com

#125 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 01:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The highlighted term, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was understood at the time of adoption to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign."

^
You believe the lies all too easily.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 01:36 PM | Reply

National Review

FacePalm

#127 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-10-30 01:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You believe the lies all too easily.

#126 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-10-30 01:36 PM

LMAO, read the legislative intent behind 8 U.S. Code § 1401 and get back to us when you have educated yourself.

#128 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 01:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

www.loc.gov

n 1898 the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, ruled that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

#129 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 01:45 PM | Reply

It doesn't take "60 years of legal interpretation" to read that the clause above allows anyone born in the US to be a citizen. It literally says "all persons born in the US are citizens of the US."

You and Trump may have a beef with that as a policy, but let's not lie about what the Constitution says, mmkay?

#107 | Posted by JOE

Yea, sort of like that literal "shall not be infringed" thingy you liberals keep misinterpreting, right?

#130 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-30 01:46 PM | Reply

"LMAO, read the legislative intent behind 8 U.S. Code § 1401"

Is that how you fancy lawyers refer to the Fourteenth Amendment?

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 01:47 PM | Reply

"there has never been an explicit holding by the Supreme Court that the children of illegal aliens are automatically accorded birthright citizenship. In the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. of legal aliens was entitled to "birthright citizenship" under the 14th Amendment. This was a 5–4 opinion which provoked the dissent of Chief Justice Melville Fuller, who argued that, contrary to the reasoning of the majority's holding, the 14th Amendment did not in fact adopt the common-law understanding of birthright citizenship."

www.nationalreview.com

#132 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 01:49 PM | Reply

I don't know whether Trump "can" make an enforceable order on this issue. But I do know that this is way too big an issue for one person to unilaterally decide via fiat. When it comes to issues of this dimension, it is the best interests of our democracy to have a lengthy debate both for and against, and then have the People's voice, through their elected representatives, vote on the issue.

#133 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-10-30 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Such hypocrisy. Jared Kushner was involved in a scheme to sell green cards to Chinese who would invest $500K in his projects.

Fraud allegations against Florida developer/political donor with ties to Trump, Kushner

#134 | Posted by TenMile at 2018-10-30 01:53 PM | Reply

www.loc.gov
n 1898 the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, ruled that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

#129 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

That's not a good case because Wong's parents were actually legal residents. So the subject to jurisdiction question wasn't necessary.

But there is other case law that echoes that sentiment.

#135 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-30 01:54 PM | Reply

"Jared Kushner was involved in a scheme to sell green cards to Chinese who would invest $500K in his projects."

Thanks, Capitalism!

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 01:54 PM | Reply

Ending Birthright Citizenship Will Make Republicans Look Like The Party Of Dred Scott

Are Republicans ready to become the party of Dred Scott? I ask, because that's what Michael Anton wants President Trump to make it look like.

thefederalist.com

#137 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 01:54 PM | Reply

The highlighted term, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was understood at the time of adoption to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign.

Citation needed. People inside the United States are subject to its jurisdiction. Someone here on a visa can be arrested, charged with a crime, for example.

#138 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 01:54 PM | Reply

#134

Deflection noted.

#139 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 01:55 PM | Reply

Was Barron born before Melania was naturalized? Maybe Trump is thinking he may not be Barron's daddy and this could be a way to reduce spending.

#140 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-10-30 01:59 PM | Reply

The National Security Dimension of Birthright Citizenship

www.lawfareblog.com

#141 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 01:59 PM | Reply

Joe,

The links I provided have the citation you are asking for.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 02:01 PM | Reply

#134
Deflection noted.

Not a deflection if Trump (via his condos in Sunny Isle) and Kushner's family (via their Chinese visa scheme) are busy making money off of Russian and Chinese anchor babies while Trump is out claiming he wants to do away with the amendment that sanctions anchor babies in general.

#143 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:03 PM | Reply

--People inside the United States are subject to its jurisdiction.

Addressed in #62

#144 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 02:03 PM | Reply

#133 Moder8 - my funny flag was a mistake. I intended a NW.

#145 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 02:03 PM | Reply

#144 And yet our laws are applied to tourists and visa holders on a daily basis, thereby rendering them "subject to our jurisdiction. A french tourist can't come here and murder skmeone then say "sorry, i owe allegiance to france, therefore i am not subject to your jurisdiction and cannot be charged."

Next

#146 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 02:08 PM | Reply

Defining ‘American': Birthright Citizenship And The Original Understanding Of The 14th Amendment

Stay tuned: Dred Scott II could be coming soon to a federal court near you.

thefederalist.com

#147 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:10 PM | Reply

Joe,

Here's a better explanation:

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States meant not "owing allegiance to anybody else."

www.nytimes.com

#148 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 02:11 PM | Reply

--People inside the United States are subject to its jurisdiction.
Addressed in #62

#144 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

No. It really wasn't. One author's arguments during debate don't frame how the Amendment functions.

In addition, the most recent case, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), has pretty much done away with the claim that they must citizens or legal residents to give birthright citizenship to their children if born here. In the case, the Court recognized that if an illegal immigrant has a child here, they have birthright citizenship.

#149 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-30 02:12 PM | Reply

And yet our laws are applied to tourists and visa holders on a daily basis, thereby rendering them "subject to our jurisdiction. A french tourist can't come here and murder skmeone then say "sorry, i owe allegiance to france, therefore i am not subject to your jurisdiction and cannot be charged."

Article I linked to in #147 agrees with your assessment.

#150 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:13 PM | Reply

#138

Westlaw has the complete legislative history of 8 U.S. Code § 1401, which I won't reprint here, but it references the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the discussions regarding Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes which confirmed this principle: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States." During the discussions over this Section, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, the framers of the 14th Amendment, discussed what "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant in the context of the 14th Amendment, with Sen. Trumbull providing this answer:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

I also found a good (and free) article on the Federalistblog that covers this pretty extensively:

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means

#151 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 02:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#148 From the article I linked to in #137

When asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment would have "the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country," another of its key proponents, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, responded, "Undoubtedly."

Also from that article:

The amendment's very first sentence, knows as the Citizenship Clause, reads: "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 clause extends birthright citizenship to anyone born in America who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which raises the question: who is not subject to that jurisdiction?

The answer, I thought, was pretty obvious: diplomats and other official agents of foreign governments, who are covered by "diplomatic immunity" and therefore not prosecutable under U.S. laws. (Native American tribes, also, were regarded as sovereign nations subject to federal control only by treaty and not by ordinary laws.)

#152 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:19 PM | Reply

A good example was the diplomat whose child is born in the US, but is in the US under diplomatic duty.
The result was the jurisdiction thereof was considered the country of the diplomat and not where the child was born within the US.

The other example was the individual that was in the US, having had child, was here as a hostile alien.

Outside of those two, everyone else is basically a citizen.

So, I guess Trump needs to call illegal aliens hostile aliens.

#153 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-30 02:19 PM | Reply

As a matter of policy we treat those who are born in the US as citizens but that is not codified into the 14th Amendment.

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 02:20 PM | Reply

#148 Jeff, you may want to take a lesson from Antonin Scalia when it comes to the use of "legislative history" to discern the meaning of our laws:

"Stray snippets of legislative history...prove nothing about Congress's purpose in enacting [the statute]...The Constitution gives legal effect to the 'Laws' Congress enacts, not the objectives its Members aimed to acheive in voting for them...Anyway, it is utterly impossible to discern what Members of Congress intended except to the extent that intent is manifested in the only remnant of 'history' that bears the unanimous endorsement of the majority of each House: the text of the enrolled bill that became law." (emphasis mine)

#155 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 02:22 PM | Reply

"The manner in which the law 'could have been written' has no bearing; what matters is what the Legislature did enact. We cannot rewrite that to reflect our perception of legislative purpose."
-Antonin Scalia

#156 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 02:23 PM | Reply

"Subject to the jurisdiction" means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States meant not "owing allegiance to anybody else."

Meaning:

Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory.

Foreign diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity,[12] while lawful enemy combatants enjoy combatant immunity.[13] Accordingly, children born to them are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

thefederalist.com

#157 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:23 PM | Reply

Imagine if Obama had said he was going to issue an e.o. banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons. Republicans would have immediately started impeachment procedures.

#158 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-10-30 02:24 PM | Reply

What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
I also found a good (and free) article on the Federalistblog that covers this pretty extensively:
What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means

#151 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

No. That's what the author WANTS it to me.

But the last two Supreme Court cases to touch on the issue have suggested otherwise.

#159 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-30 02:28 PM | Reply

I love how Joe is citing Scalia (when it suits his purposes), a well known opponent of reviewing legislative history in ascertaining intent behind the law, when 99% of the time Joe curses his name.

#160 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 02:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hotsauce,

You may not have noticed but the conservatives who are weighing in on this thread are all pretty much in agreement that the Executive doesn't have the power to do what Trump is suggesting.

#161 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 02:30 PM | Reply

Nothing Is More "Conservative" Than Birthright Citizenship

Eliminating birthright citizenship means overthrowing the Constitution and the thousand-year history of English common law.

[I]f you want to repeal the 14th Amendment and still call yourself a Republican -- well, let's such say you have even less sense of history than the Democrats who want to purge Thomas Jefferson from their party.

thefederalist.com

#162 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:31 PM | Reply

No. That's what the author WANTS it to me.

I was referring to the Westlaw legislative intent and the quote from Sen. Turnbull, which is also discussed in the Federalist Blog. I really don't care what the Federalist Blog author's opinion is.

As for what the "suggestions" from SCOTUS may or may not be, they are merely that.

#163 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 02:31 PM | Reply

#160 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I gave you a NW but in fairness to Joe, he seems like he's trying to have an honest discussion about this.

#164 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 02:31 PM | Reply

The question in Wong Kim Ark was "whether a child born to parents who are subjects of the emperor of China is a US citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. The SC answered in the affirmative.

They also noted: "In the forefront, both of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, and of the civil rights act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms."

#165 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 02:35 PM | Reply

#164

I know that, I was just pointing out the irony of him repeatedly citing Scalia to give him a hard time.

That would be like me citing Brennan about the propriety of the "Living Constitution."

#166 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#160 When have i ever "cursed Scalia's name?" I have always respected him as a jurist regardless of where we differ on policy outcomes. You must be thinking of someone else.

#167 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 02:36 PM | Reply

#166 at it again. Keep making ---- up - it's all you've got these days.

#168 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In the past 160 posts, has anyone pointed how disgusting Trumpublicans are and how everything they do brings them closer to being the Nazis we foretold of?

By the way. In the few dozen posts I read. No one has a compelling argument to justify their xenophobia.

Just fearmongering bigotry and bullshht.

#169 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-30 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If the amendment did not give Native Americans birthright citizenship, it's hard to see it giving it to tourists, visa holders, illegal immigrants, etc."

The reason it didn't apply to Native Americans:

from quote in #152 "(Native American tribes, also, were regarded as sovereign nations subject to federal control only by treaty and not by ordinary laws.)"

#170 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:40 PM | Reply

3 articles from The Federalist? Posted by Tuesday? That's like crazy, Daddy-o.

#171 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 02:40 PM | Reply

#171 Are you being obtuse again, Nulli? The reason I am quoting from The Federalist is to demonstrate this isn't a strict right vs left issue, especially to folks like Jeff.

#172 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:45 PM | Reply

Nothing of substance posted by Nazifidian?

That's like, another day at the retort.

Daddy-o.

#173 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-30 02:45 PM | Reply

I like the Federalist too, Tuesday. I just think it's funny that that source is slaughtered when ever I link to it.

#174 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 02:48 PM | Reply

I was referring to the Westlaw legislative intent and the quote from Sen. Turnbull, which is also discussed in the Federalist Blog. I really don't care what the Federalist Blog author's opinion is.
As for what the "suggestions" from SCOTUS may or may not be, they are merely that.

#163 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

And Sen. Turnbull's intent isn't the legislative intent as a whole nor does it constitute how SCOTUS has viewed it in recent cases.

Wong definitely did away with the citizenship requirement and not being subjects of a foreign power. While they weren't here illegally, they were certainly citizens of a foreign country.

The best that is left is whether birthright citizenship can be applied to the children of people here illegally since there is only dicta in that regard.

#175 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-30 02:49 PM | Reply

I didn't say I like the site, but I thought Jeff does.

#176 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-30 02:51 PM | Reply

Another quote from the majority in Wong Kim Ark:

"The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the consitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases, - children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives from a foreign state, - both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

#177 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 02:51 PM | Reply

Can we strip the the racist Nazi Coddlers like Comrade Boazo and his like minded kind of their citizenship. That would be fun!

They are traitors after all!

#178 | Posted by Aborted_monson at 2018-10-30 02:56 PM | Reply

Maybe our leadership should try being creative for a change. There can be categories other than simply 'citizen' or 'non-citizen' for children newly born. Maybe something like automatic Legal Permanent Resident status for the newborn up until the age of 18, and if they have spent their entire life here for that period, automatic citizenship. Obviously such an idea could be tweaked in a lot of ways to take into account different situations. But the whole 'citizen-noncitizen' duality is a false choice and reflects an inability of our leaders to think outside the box.

#179 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-10-30 02:57 PM | Reply

Looks like Team Trump's trolling has worked exactly as it has intended. Whatever you think of Trump, he is a marketing genius.

#78 | POSTED BY Comrade SENTINEL

Yes he is such a genius that's why he needs huge loans from Russia and the Saudis to Keep his sham empire afloat.

#180 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-10-30 03:02 PM | Reply

#164 and 166-

I don't keep a creepy archive like Hans, but I seemed to recall an exchange during the Kavanaugh mess where you said something to the effect "he will just be another conservative ___hole like Scalia, maybe worse."

If I was wrong, I apologize.

#181 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 03:22 PM | Reply

#169

Shhh, the adults are having a discussion here.

#182 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 03:25 PM | Reply

"Shhh, the adults are having a discussion here."

Let's frame this discussion:

"Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other any more"
--President Donald J. Trump.

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't say I like the site, but I thought Jeff does.

#176 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

It's a decent site. Not great, but decent.

#184 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 03:27 PM | Reply

#183

Start your own thread...Hans can help you with the HTML.

Now go play with Clowny.

#185 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 03:30 PM | Reply

"I don't keep a creepy archive like Hans..." - #181 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 03:22 PM

I suppose you consider Google, Bing, Yahoo and Ask.com "creepy."

After all, they keep an "archive," too.

#186 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 03:31 PM | Reply

"Posted by Rightocenter" site:drudge.com About 124 results (0.41 seconds)

#187 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 03:36 PM | Reply

Now go play with Clowny.
#185 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

I actually have shht to do.

But you? You seem unemployed.

How can a real lawyer spend 24 hours a day on the DR?

#188 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-30 03:38 PM | Reply

#187 | POSTED BY HANS

Conservatives say so much stupid, blatantly false, shht. I'm glad you're here to throw it back in their deplorable faces.

If any of them knew how to use the archives. They would.

They're jealous.

#189 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-30 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#186

LOL, you must have forgotten your admission that you save posts that "interest you" to use later.

Nice try though.

#190 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 03:46 PM | Reply

Multitasking seems to be beyond Clowny's limited capabilities.

Now run along and play Legos with Snoofy.

#191 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Worst President in History.

And the People who support him. He has no clue how American government works. And lies to his base is dividing our People and nations

Dear God... may the People wake up and vote to end this nightmare before more People get Killed and Injured by this Madman.

#192 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-30 03:50 PM | Reply

Multitasking seems to be beyond Clowny's limited capabilities.

I forgot. Lawyers usually have tons of free time. To multitask.

Especially when unemployed.

Do your "clients" know they're paying you to bicker on the internet?

#193 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-30 03:58 PM | Reply

"Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other any more"
--President Donald J. Trump.
#183 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Like a dog hearing his master's whistle, RightOCenter's responds to Trump's clarion call for more hurting by spending most of his energies spewing hurtful words in this thread.

Congratulations RightOCenter, you built that! It's just the way your master wanted it built too.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 04:08 PM | Reply

"you must have forgotten your admission that you save posts that "interest you" to use later." - #190 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 03:46 PM

Haven't forgotten a thing.

Why would you think that?

#195 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 04:11 PM | Reply

#194

*Hands Snoofy instructions to build Lego Arkham Asylum*

#196 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 04:18 PM | Reply

#181 You were wrong, i never said anything like that. Apology not accepted as this isn't the first time you've made ---- up about me.

#197 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 04:19 PM | Reply

#195

Sorry, it seemed like you were claiming that your archive posts came solely from Google or the Time Machine.

I'm actually cool with your personal archive, I just like to give you grief about it.

#198 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 04:20 PM | Reply

#197

Lighten up Francis.

#199 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 04:21 PM | Reply

The poof that accuses everyone that disagrees with him of being a trump voter is now whining about people making ---- up?
Lil Angry Joe is a special little thing.

#200 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-30 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#200

I especially liked the "Apology not accepted" part, I wonder if he stamped his feet when he typed that.

#201 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 04:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No kidding. What a little bitch.

#202 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-30 04:28 PM | Reply

#200 I accuse people who spend hours every day of their lives defending Trump on the internet of being Trump voters.

But there's a difference between making an educated assumption and inventing quotes out of thin air that never happened. I wouldn't expect your pea brain to make that distinction though.

#203 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 04:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So you can lie and make things up, but nobody else can.

Lil petty bitch Joe strikes again.

Go tell your mommy you snatch.

#204 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-30 04:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you.

You only feel good about yourself when trying to make others feel bad.

Your emotional economy is a zero-sum game.

#205 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 04:32 PM | Reply

Was 101 ever worth reading? I recall him being vaguely funny but this is pretty lame.

#206 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 04:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I just like to give you grief about it." - #198 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 04:20 PM

:-)

#207 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 04:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You gotta love it. ROC makes up a quote that never happens to use as a springboard for hypocrisy allegations. I tell him he's a liar and now somehow i'm still a hypocrite because i think people who spend more time defending Trump than they do breathing voted for him. And now 101 and ROC will proceed to suck each other off online and give each other NW flags for the next three hours.

No thanks. Enjoy your cracker game.

#208 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 04:38 PM | Reply

"Go tell your mommy you snatch." - #204 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-30 04:32 PM

What does he snatch?

And what does it matter to his mommy if he does snatch?

Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation

#209 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 04:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You keep asking that, lil Joe.
It's as if your feelings are bruised. Kind of strange.

#210 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-30 04:40 PM | Reply

"Part of the problem is no one wants to hurt each other any more"
--President Donald J. Trump.

"I just like to give you grief about it." - #198 | Posted by Rightocenter

^
Please no more calls, we have our winner!

#211 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 04:42 PM | Reply

"Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation"

Let's Eat Grandma! The Importance of Commas.

#212 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 04:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Seems simple enough. Why should someone run across the border, have a baby, and that baby become a citizen without any other connection to the US?
I knew a girl that flew in from an Asian Country, stayed long enough to have a baby here, and that baby was automatically a citizen. The whole purpose of her trip was to have the baby here. She simply ignored the hospital bills. There was nothing they could do to her. Someone else paid. Now the baby qualifies for all kinds of things.

At least one parent should be a citizen to grant citizenship to a baby born here. That will cut down on the fraud.

If you all want to take care of the world's people fine. Use your own money and don't put us all into debt doing it.

#213 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-30 04:56 PM | Reply

It seems to pretty easy to understand. If you're in Texas you're under the jurisdiction of Texas at the sate level and the USA at the national level. Regardless of legal status.

#214 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 05:02 PM | Reply

209
The koala bear joke "one who eats bush and leaves"....

#215 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-30 05:16 PM | Reply

"I knew a girl that flew in from an Asian Country, stayed long enough to have a baby here, and that baby was automatically a citizen. The whole purpose of her trip was to have the baby here. She simply ignored the hospital bills. There was nothing they could do to her. Someone else paid. Now the baby qualifies for all kinds of things. "

^
This reads like you're the father.

#216 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 05:19 PM | Reply

When it comes to issues of this dimension, it is the best interests of our democracy to have a lengthy debate both for and against, and then have the People's voice, through their elected representatives, vote on the issue.

POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2018-10-30 01:51 PM | REPLY |

Negatory When it comes to constitutional jurisprudence it requires an impartial body to determine what it means. Not people with a ready made bias decide it.

#217 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-30 05:24 PM | Reply

#208

Looks like its time for Joe to head into the Menstruation Hut...

#218 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 05:27 PM | Reply

If Trump can undo birthright citizenship with an EO, does that mean some future president could re-instate it with one?

#42 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-10-30 11:06 AM | FLAG:

or maybe abolish the 2nd amendment?

#219 | Posted by cjk85 at 2018-10-30 05:46 PM | Reply

What's your plan for how to handle the mother and baby who can't provide that information?

#97 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-10-30 12:15 PM | FLAG:

23 and Me

#220 | Posted by cjk85 at 2018-10-30 05:56 PM | Reply

#216 This reads like you're the father.

Strange comment.

#221 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-30 06:24 PM | Reply

#214 Nope.

The plain meaning of the 14th Amendment means that one must BOTH be born in United States AND be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. ... The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power.

#222 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-30 06:25 PM | Reply

If you "owe allegiance to any other foreign power" does that mean I can kill, rob, maim, and do all sorts of mayhem here because I'm not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"

#223 | Posted by YAV at 2018-10-30 06:40 PM | Reply

What's your plan for how to handle the mother and baby who can't provide that information?

#97 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

I am not sure how I missed this earlier, but who would not be able to complete the documents that are already required for most employment? Are you saying the mother is an undocumented immigrant and there is not a citizen father to provide his proof and sign the certificate? In such a case they should still be treated at the hospital, but not granted citizenship. How is it done in Germany when a tourist delivers a baby? I honestly dont know but since Germany no longer grants birthright citizenship they must have a process for documenting non-citizen births...

#224 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-10-30 06:40 PM | Reply

The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you, as does just about any other scholar without an agenda.

#225 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 06:43 PM | Reply

There is today no serious scholarly debate about whether a president can, through executive action, contradict the Supreme Court's long-standing and consistent interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Instead, as conservative legal scholar James Ho, now a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit nominated by President Trump, wrote more than a decade ago, "a constitutional amendment is ... the only way to restrict birthright citizenship." The executive branch's own lawyers have long agreed.

Muneer I. Ahmad
Clinical Professor of Law and Deputy Dean of Experiential Education
Yale Law School

Walter E. Dellinger III
Douglas B. Maggs Professor Emeritus of Law
Duke University School of Law

Lucas Guttentag
Professor of the Practice of Law, Stanford Law School
Lecturer and Distinguished Senior Research Scholar
Yale Law School

Harold Hongju Koh
Sterling Professor of International Law
Yale Law School

Stephen H. Legomsky
John S. Lehmann University Professor Emeritus
Washington University School of Law

Gerard N. Magliocca
Samuel R. Rosen Professor of Law
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

David A. Martin
Warner-Booker Distinguished Professor of International Law Emeritus
University of Virginia School of Law

Michael W. McConnell
Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center
Stanford Law School

Hiroshi Motomura
Susan Westerberg Prager Distinguished Professor of Law University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law

Gerald L. Neuman
J. Sinclair Armstrong Professor of International, Foreign, and Comparative Law
Harvard Law School

Cristina Rodríguez
Leighton Homer Surbeck Professor of Law
Yale Law School

Peter J. Spiro
Charles Weiner Professor of Law
Temple University Law School

Geoffrey R. Stone
Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law The University of Chicago

Laurence H. Tribe
Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law
Harvard Law School

Stephen I. Vladeck
A. Dalton Cross Professor in Law
The University of Texas at Austin Law School

Cue the people who worship at the altar of stupidity criticizing the source for being law professors who likely know more about te Constitution than anyone ITT.

#226 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 06:57 PM | Reply

BTW - what's hilarious to me about this is that the GOP has for many, many years, had called for a Constitutional Amendment changing the 14th Amendment so just being born here wouldn't automatically make you a U.S. Citizen.

Ironically, even in the same GOP Platform, they've also called for an Amendment that would make any child conceived of in the United States a citizen so that abortion would be murder.

#227 | Posted by YAV at 2018-10-30 07:06 PM | Reply

Bears repeating:

You may not have noticed but the conservatives who are weighing in on this thread are all pretty much in agreement that the Executive doesn't have the power to do what Trump is suggesting.

#161 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-10-30 02:30 PM

#228 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 07:16 PM | Reply

169

Shhh, the adults are having a discussion here.

#182 | POSTED BY FakeLawyer

Child please....... hypocrite much?

A person that pretends to be a lawyer when he's not, and then has a habitual lying problem 99% of the time isnt what most people consider "Adult".

#229 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2018-10-30 07:18 PM | Reply

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee of full access to all public and social services that this society provides, and that's a lot of services,"

Harry Reid, 1993

#230 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 07:32 PM | Reply

Oh wow, a disgraced idiotic retired democrat said something once so now we're all bound by it.

#231 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 07:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nulli's Google search history must be a hoot.

#232 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-10-30 07:48 PM | Reply

Oh wow, a disgraced idiotic retired democrat said something once so now we're all bound by it.

#231 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-10-30 07:45 PM

That's funny and here I thought he was the leader of the Senate Democrats from 2005 to 2017 and the Senate Majority Leader from 2007 to 2015.

#233 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 07:54 PM | Reply

Doesn't stop him from being a disgraced idiotic retired democrat.

#234 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-10-30 07:56 PM | Reply

Harry Reid, 1993

#230 | Posted by nullifidian

Wow. Nulli just proved that Democrats have said dumb things, too!

Brilliant!

Can't get anything by that Nulli!

#235 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-10-30 08:06 PM | Reply

#233 Even at the time, any Democrat with a brain admitted he was an idiot. Certainly nobody looks up to the man now. Except Nullifidian, apparently.

#236 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 08:07 PM | Reply

Oh wow, a disgraced idiotic retired democrat said something once so now we're all bound by it.

#231 | Posted by JOE

You can make of what you will, Angry Joe; I just think it's more evidence of how far the Democrats have swung to the left.

How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration*

"A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today."

www.theatlantic.com

*Corky-approved source

#237 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 08:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Doesn't stop him from being a disgraced idiotic retired democrat.

And that didn't stop the Usual Suspects on the DR Left from defending his every word and action from 2005-2017 because...wait for it...#Team.

#238 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 08:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Oh wow, a disgraced idiotic retired democrat said something once so now we're all bound by it.
#231 | Posted by JOE

Haven't heard him referred to that way but okay.

But if that's true then the references to a dead republican advisor, Lee Atwater, and to a single quote from him 30+ years ago would be just as absurd.

#239 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-30 08:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Fascism: It's all the rage.

#240 | Posted by cbob at 2018-10-30 08:23 PM | Reply

#239 It's how I think of him, and I recall at least some on the left admitting to his ineffectiveness and outright stupidity during the Obama era.

Regardless, who the hell said anything about Lee Atwater? Did i miss something?

#241 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 08:31 PM | Reply

#236 | Posted by JOE

Reid did more than run his mouth about. Being a man of not mere words but one of action, he introduced a bill that would eliminate birthright citizenship, among other things. www.congress.gov

#242 | Posted by et_al at 2018-10-30 08:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Regardless, who the hell said anything about Lee Atwater?

LOL

Did i miss something?

No.....you're dialed right in, Joe.

#243 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-30 08:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Regardless, who the hell said anything about Lee Atwater? Did i miss something?

If memory serves (and sometimes it doesn't), Corky and Hans have been quoting Atwater's infamous 1981 interview fairly regularly lately, which is what Eb is referencing.

#244 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 08:40 PM | Reply

"Corky and Hans have been quoting Atwater's infamous 1981 interview fairly regularly lately..." - #244 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 08:40 PM

Not me.

Certainly not "fairly regularly lately."

#245 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 08:42 PM | Reply

245

You could dig them up. You've seen them hundreds of times.

#246 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-30 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that "immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants" and that "the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear." His conclusion: "We'll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants."

Who said that? Why none other than Saint Paul Krugman, favorite economist of the DNC.

#247 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-30 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#245

Which is why I qualified it...but I notice that you don't deny that you have quoted him before.

#248 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 08:54 PM | Reply

Joe got bludgeoned for being a disingenuous and hypocritical dick on this thread. I don't know which was his biggest undoing.

#249 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 09:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#233 Even at the time, any Democrat with a brain admitted he was an idiot. Certainly nobody looks up to the man now. Except Nullifidian, apparently.

#236 | POSTED BY JOE

Well, he was the driving force behind nuking the filibuster for all POTUS nominees sans SCOTUS appointments. This occurred at the end of his term and he was loudly applauded for this power grab. He was very ------- relevant within the Democratic Party right up until his retirement.

#250 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 09:18 PM | Reply

If I were Trump I would require one parent to have citizenship otherwise the birthright does not apply. I would however allow exemptions for people able to pay a fee for their citizenship.

#251 | Posted by byrdman at 2018-10-30 09:18 PM | Reply

Who said that? Why none other than Saint Paul Krugman, favorite economist of the DNC.
#247 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

You believe Krugman now.
"Well isn't that conveeenient!"

#252 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 09:36 PM | Reply

How cute, Jeff's here to fluff his team. And we don't even have to pay to watch.

#253 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-30 09:50 PM | Reply

"...but I notice that you don't deny that you have quoted him before." - #248 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 08:54 PM

I have quoted him before.

Why, I'll cite it now:

In 1981, Lee Atwater gives an interview where he explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves.
That particular interview is gold, RoC... gold.

But "fairly regularly lately"?

Nope.

#254 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 09:58 PM | Reply

"fairly regularly lately"

3 subjective terms.

#255 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-30 10:02 PM | Reply

"I don't know which was his biggest undoing."

Lil Joe is gonna keep going....so that's unclear still

#256 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-30 10:03 PM | Reply

"3 subjective terms." - #255 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-30 10:02 PM

Which is probably why RoC used them.

But if you can cite anything more than my #254, I'll gladly give you a mea culpa.

#257 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 10:04 PM | Reply

How cute, Jeff's here to fluff his team. And we don't even have to pay to watch.

#253 | POSTED BY JOE

You rationalized that Harry Reid was irrelevant and it was pointed out to you by multiple members "of my team" that your characterization was ignorant at best or dishonest at worst.

You could just man-up and acknowledge that your characterization of Reid's influence (or lack of) was inaccurate. A little honesty goes a long way.

#258 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 10:10 PM | Reply

Hans,

Frank Cotton can entice a mea culpa out of you at any time. Granted, he's currently a few miles South of our border prepping himself to greet the 'caravan' but he has a short attention span....

#259 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 10:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#254

Then I stand corrected, hopefully you will accept my apology, unlike Angry Lil Joe.

:)

#260 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 10:17 PM | Reply

If I were Trump I would require one parent to have citizenship otherwise the birthright does not apply.

I think that the overwhelming consensus is that Trump can't "require" anything in this regard.

#261 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 10:18 PM | Reply

"...hopefully you will accept my apology..." - #260 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30

Of course. Always is a pleasure sparing with you, RoC.

#262 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 10:20 PM | Reply

But "fairly regularly lately"?
Nope.
#254 | POSTED BY HANS

^
Maybe Eberly can slip you two tablets of his Correctol.

#263 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-30 10:21 PM | Reply

"Frank Cotton can entice a mea culpa out of you at any time. Granted, he's currently a few miles South of our border prepping himself to greet the 'caravan' ...." - #259 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 10:12 PM

I certainly hope that Frank's smallpox vaccination is up-to-date.

Or is his blood serum naturally resistant?

I can never remember these details about Frank.

#264 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 10:22 PM | Reply

My #262: "Always is a pleasure sparing ..." should be "Always is a pleasure sparring..."

Mea culpa.

:-)

#265 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-30 10:23 PM | Reply

I certainly hope that Frank's smallpox vaccination is up-to-date.

Or is his blood serum naturally resistant?

I can never remember these details about Frank.

#264 | POSTED BY HANS

Frank Cotton's bloodline was used to eradicate smallpox. If these rightwing D-bags who are pushing this meme are genuinely frightened about some pandemic outbreak as a result of this caravan they can have Frank 'inoculate them' and can quit peddling this offensive nonsense.

#266 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-30 10:27 PM | Reply

Founders made it perfectly clear any born on American soil are automatically American citizen.

#267 | Posted by Tor at 2018-10-30 10:37 PM | Reply

Why should somebody be rewarded for breaking our laws by illegally entering the country? About time we changed the law.

#268 | Posted by byrdman at 2018-10-30 10:49 PM | Reply

#268 - Wowzer. So much wrong in that post. That takes skill!

#269 | Posted by YAV at 2018-10-30 10:54 PM | Reply

The very idea of eliminating citizenship to all native born children is unAmerican and flies in the face of what our nation has always professed to believe in. Most of us are citizens only because of that policy. We are a nation of immigrants, only the cowards among us want to pull the ladder up now.

#270 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-30 10:59 PM | Reply

Of course. Always is a pleasure sparing with you, RoC.

And you as well my friend.

#271 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-30 11:01 PM | Reply

What a Country. If you are conceived, you may be aborted before you get a chance to live. The same people that love doing that want to give away the farm if your mother makes it across the border so that you are born on US soil. Even Harry Doofus Reid was against automatic citizenship by birth. The 14th Amendment was designed mostly to give slave citizenship, something liberals never wanted to do. Now that it's twisted into providing more potential future voting power, it's a good thing. NO Democrats supported adding the 14th Amendment.

#272 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-30 11:29 PM | Reply

"The very idea of eliminating citizenship to all native born children is unAmerican"

Uhm, that's NOT what is being proposed.

#273 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-30 11:31 PM | Reply

"The same people that love doing that want to give away the farm"

Give away the farm? By treating them the way the bible instructs treating strangers?

Who is telling you these lies?!?

#274 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 11:32 PM | Reply

"Give away the farm? By treating them the way the bible instructs treating strangers?"

So the Bible says to give strangers citizenship? Must have missed that one pastor.

#275 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-30 11:34 PM | Reply

The 14th Amendment was designed mostly to give slave citizenship, something liberals never wanted to do.

You clearly don't know what the word "liberals" means.

No true liberal would ever consider anything, let alone a fellow human being, too be a slave, their slave.

#276 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-30 11:37 PM | Reply

Liberal, Democrat, Socialist,

Same thing.

#277 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-10-30 11:41 PM | Reply

"Same thing."

Flag: Wasn't paying attention in school

#278 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 11:50 PM | Reply

"So the Bible says to give strangers citizenship? "

No.

And no one is demanding citizenship for these foreigners.

Who is lying to you in this manner? Where are you getting these falsehoods?

#279 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-30 11:51 PM | Reply

Can Trump end birthright citizenship? I asked 11 legal experts.

Not exactly, but it could get complicated.

www.vox.com

#280 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-31 12:35 AM | Reply

NO Democrats supported adding the 14th Amendment.

Wiki: "The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress."

Those Democrats?

#281 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-10-31 07:38 AM | Reply

"an Trump end birthright citizenship? I asked 11 legal experts. "

Only five will matter. The right wing members of the SC. The Trump "rubber stamp" court. He can and will be a dictator with their unquestioning support.

#282 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-31 10:28 AM | Reply

Even NBC News thinks this is open to debate: www.nbcnews.com

Those against birthright citizenship ultimately conclude that while the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause has been misapplied, it was always intended to grant citizenship only to people who are born here and whose parents are not foreign subjects.

To them, "subject to the jurisdiction" clause is not just some meaningless phrase, because there is a presumption that laws and the Constitution do not contain surplus or meaningless words. For the same reason that children of diplomats and invading armies would not be citizens, children of illegal immigrants should not be either. All of these children are -- by this interpretation -- not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.


Interesting fact: foreign consuls do not have full diplomatic immunity and are partially subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but yet their children do not get automatic citizenship.

Another possibility: what if Trump were to declare those who enter the country illegally to be enemy combatants or foreign invaders? Is anyone really going to argue they weren't intended to be excluded in the same way foreign diplomats and consuls are?

#283 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 11:22 AM | Reply

"Another possibility: what if Trump were to declare those who enter the country illegally to be enemy combatants or foreign invaders?"

People who like Swastikas as much as you do would go and shoot suspected enemy combatants.
Which is any male over 12, by the way.

#284 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 11:24 AM | Reply

"Interesting fact: foreign consuls do not have full diplomatic immunity and are partially subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but yet their children do not get automatic citizenship."

That's not an interesting fact, that's a corner case, and the way you've presented it is misleading, but then, that's why you're here.

#285 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Another possibility: what if Trump were to declare those who enter the country illegally to be enemy combatants or foreign invaders? Is anyone really going to argue they weren't intended to be excluded in the same way foreign diplomats and consuls are?"

No one, I guess.

#286 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 01:04 PM | Reply

With the full cooperation of people who claimed Obama was acting as a dictator

#287 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-10-31 01:09 PM | Reply

"With the full cooperation of people who claimed Obama was acting as a dictator"

That is problematic for those who called or compared Obama to a dictator. Luckily, I am not one of those people.

#288 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 01:10 PM | Reply

With the full cooperation of people who claimed Obama was acting as a dictator

#287 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

Obama made Bush look like a piker when it came to the Imperial Presidency.

#289 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 01:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Trump Claims He Can End Birthright Citizenship Via Executive Order

Trump's first victim will be Barak Obama.

#290 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-10-31 01:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

#290 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Hilarious!

#291 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 01:13 PM | Reply

When Trump's inbred children Eric, Ivanka and Don Jr. were born, their mother was not a US citizen.

#292 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 01:16 PM | Reply

You may not have noticed but the conservatives who are weighing in on this thread are all pretty much in agreement that the Executive doesn't have the power to do what Trump is suggesting.

#161 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I thought this needed repeating. No one is buying that Trump can do this. It's just smoke.

If he tries, the courts will end the it.

#293 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 01:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It really depends on how the EO is worded. A simple statement that children of illegal immigrants and non-resident aliens are exempt from birthright citizenship wouldn't stand. It needs to be related to the execution and enforcement of existing laws and procedures. For example, he could issue and order to indefinitely "defer" the issuance of passports or other federal documentation which recognize the citizenship of the children of such people until the Supreme Court rules directly on the issue.

#294 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 01:44 PM | Reply

"For example, he could issue and order to indefinitely "defer" the issuance of passports or other federal documentation which recognize the citizenship of the children of such people until the Supreme Court rules directly on the issue."

When I was a kid, the angry old white men drilled into my head that the difference between a free country and Russia is that we can travel freely and generally go about our lives without having to show our papers to the authorities on demand.

I'd really like to know what happened to all those angry old white men.

#295 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 01:54 PM | Reply

#294

The Courts would strike down an EO such as you describe as violating the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S. Code § 1401 in a heartbeat.

This will have to be done either legislatively (further defining "within the jurisdiction") or by Amendment.

#296 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 01:59 PM | Reply

#294 I can tell you're licking your chops to see what sort of cruel, disingenuous attempt to stave off litigation this administration comes up with.

#297 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 02:00 PM | Reply

There is one way Trump could do this. I think he may not be reading this, so don't let him know.

He could declare illegal aliens hostile aliens.

If he does....

#298 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 02:09 PM | Reply

#298, that's more or less what I said in #283.

#299 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 02:17 PM | Reply

Sorry, Sent - didn't see your post.

#300 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-31 02:20 PM | Reply

No worries. This thread has gotten huge, like Trump's ego.

#301 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 02:23 PM | Reply

What's interesting:

No one is talking about how Trump doesn't understand law or how he is lying.

The discussion is about the grounds for birthright citizenship.

Why? Because we have all become to accustom to Trump lying that we just accept it as part of reality now.

That's how pathetic the Republican Party has become.

#302 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-31 03:33 PM | Reply

Imagine if Obama said he was going to rewrite the Second Amendment via executive order. The Right would have burned down the White House.

#303 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 04:15 PM | Reply

Yeah, Obama squandered his chance to start the next Civil War by not issuing that Executive Order after the tree of liberty was watered with the blood of twenty children in their school.

#304 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 04:21 PM | Reply

#303

Instead of rewriting the second Amendment Obama rewrote our immigration laws (DACA/DAPA), rewrote ACA numerous times, turned our college campuses into Kangaroo courts for adjudicating sexual assault allegations with a "Dear colleague" letter, mandated kids with gender dysphoria could use whichever locker room they wished with a "Dear colleague" letter, made recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate wasn't in recess, enacted Cap-n-Trade through the EPA with no accompanying legislation, entered the US into 2 national agreements without having them ratified by the Senate, etc, etc......the White House never got burned down through all of that.

Republicans are openly saying Trump can't accomplish this via EO, not once did any Democrats speak out when Obama was repeatedly raping the Constitution.

#305 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Obama was repeatedly raping the Constitution."

Somebody should have called the cops, or Republicans will never believe it happened.

#306 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 04:34 PM | Reply

"when Obama was repeatedly raping the Constitution."

That's some pretty extreme hyperbole there, Jeff. You should tone it down a bit. Maybe say "when Obama was having a man dingo party with the Constitution" instead.

#307 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 04:41 PM | Reply

"If he tries, the courts will end the it."

So then he'll try again.

You know, like Trump's Muslim ban that finally got accepted on the third try.

You guys are acting like that ban didn't ultimately happen, because you're okay with the birthright ban happening.

#308 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 04:45 PM | Reply

#305 None of those were a rewriting of the Constitution of the United States, which is what my post was about. If you want to compare executive orders on other topics, your favorite reality TV star president is outpacing Obama in that regard.

#309 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 04:45 PM | Reply

#307 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 04:41 PM

I wonder if ϟwastika-worshiping ϟϟentinel can enlighten us:

Is this one of the good Swastikas, or one of the bad Swastikas.

He's an expert, after all.

#310 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-31 04:46 PM | Reply

In his two terms, Obama issued 277 executive orders, a total number on par with his modern predecessors, but the lowest per-year average (35) in 120 years. Trump signed 42 executive orders in 200 days. Damn those facts getting away of lies yet again. Who is the wannabe dictator? The guy that signed a heck of a lot more in half the time as all the other POTUS's.
Obama did the EO's out of desperation as the white wing, I mean right wing did not want to even let the government function because you know you cannot have a black guy running it and all and they would rather drown it like a baby in a bathtub than have him succeed. TRump and the GOP hold all three houses and the Supreme court and still TRump resorts to these endless EO's like some tinpot dictator.

#311 | Posted by Tknees2 at 2018-10-31 04:49 PM | Reply

Instead of rewriting the second Amendment Obama rewrote our immigration laws

1) laws and amendments are different things.
2) Obama did not remove laws or even alter laws. He just directed where the limited funds for that purpose should be focused.

The reason it takes 2 years to get a hearing for asylum seekers is because Congress would rather fund imprisoning them for 2 years than funding an addition courtroom. The cost of keeping the immigrants in prisons is close to $50,000/year. If a new jusge position could process 5 immigration cases a week it would save us the cost of keeping 250 immigrants in prison for 2 years and would save us $25 million in costs. I would think even renting space and all of the secondary costs and positions involved in running just 1 case a day would be far less than $25 million

Maybe we should build a couple courtrooms instead of more tent cities

#312 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-10-31 05:11 PM | Reply

#309 Joe

What Trump is floating could be achieved via legislation, so my examples are comparable.

Secondly, Obama much preferred Executive memoranda and "Dear Colleague" letters to EO's, which carry the same weight.

Lastly, EO's are not a problem in and of themselves. It's when these executive actions exceed the POTUS's enumerated powers that they become a problem. So again, my examples are comparable to what is being discussed here.

#313 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 05:43 PM | Reply

What Trump is floating could be achieved via legislation

Debatable. As he has described it, no, it could not. Regardless, my point was that Obama never threatened to write the Second Amendment out of existence via executive order, and if he had, people like you would have ---- a railroad tie, regardless of whether it could also have been "achieved via legislation." You've strayed far from that point by now.

Secondly, Obama much preferred Executive memoranda and "Dear Colleague" letters to EO's, which carry the same weight.

Keep moving those goalposts. I'm not going to sit here and count them, but if i had to guess, Trump has likely exceeded Obama in that area as well.

Lastly, EO's are not a problem in and of themselve

They were when Obama was president. Suddenly you're a man of nuance. Stop defending this filth. It's beneath even you.

#314 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 07:40 PM | Reply

And before you jump on the word "exceeded," i meant in terms of pace.

#315 | Posted by JOE at 2018-10-31 07:41 PM | Reply

"Regardless, my point was that Obama never threatened to write the Second Amendment out of existence via executive order"

If you're being honest, Trump never threatened to write the 14th Amendment out of existence either. He's proposing a very significant change in the interpretation of it as written.

#316 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-10-31 08:49 PM | Reply

Regardless, my point was that Obama never threatened to write the Second Amendment out of existence via executive order,...which is a red herring because what is being floated here doesn't write an entire amendment out of existence either.

Keep moving those goalposts. I'm not going to sit here and count them, but if i had to guess, Trump has likely exceeded Obama in that area as well.

The goalposts have remained steady. Executive Orders, Executive Memoranda and "Dear Colleague" letters ALL carry the same weight in terms of their impact.

Lastly, EO's are not a problem in and of themselves
----
They were when Obama was president.

No, they weren't. I provided very specific examples of when they were a problem - I didn't cite every single EO written by Obama because plenty of them were within his scope as POTUS.

Suddenly you're a man of nuance.

I always have been.

Stop defending this filth.

I'm not. I've already said that he doesn't have the power to do this via an Executive Order.

#317 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 09:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Regardless, my point was that Obama never threatened to write the Second Amendment out of existence via executive order,...which is a red herring because what is being floated here doesn't write an entire amendment out of existence either. "

You're fooling yourself if you don't think the Fourteenth Amendment in its entirety is a thorn in the GOP's side.
Especially that "incorporation" part.
And also, that "equal protection" part that.
Both of which are the basis basis of the poorly adjudicated gay marriage decision.

So, yeah, there's your red herring.

#318 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 10:19 PM | Reply

"I've already said that he doesn't have the power to do this via an Executive Order."

Didn't you say that about DACA?

#319 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 10:19 PM | Reply

It's almost as if the freaks on the DR Left have had their Corpus Callosum severed, we have to repeat this every 80 posts or so:

You may not have noticed but the conservatives who are weighing in on this thread are all pretty much in agreement that the Executive doesn't have the power to do what Trump is suggesting.

#161 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-10-30 02:30 PM

Talk about Mental Dwarves...

#320 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 10:22 PM | Reply

"You may not have noticed but the conservatives who are weighing in on this thread are all pretty much in agreement that the Executive doesn't have the power to do what Trump is suggesting."

Didn't the conservatives who are weighing in on this thread are all pretty much say that about DACA?

#321 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 10:24 PM | Reply

"I've already said that he doesn't have the power to do this via an Executive Order."

Didn't you say that about DACA?

#319 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yep. Consistency. Try it sometime. It's liberating. I oppose this notion, as an EO, for the same reason I opposed DACA/DAPA - they are ALL unconstitutional as an executive initiative.

It's wrong when Trump does it. It's wrong when Obama does it. It's wrong when Bush does it. It's wrong when Clinton.....

#322 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 10:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Didn't you say that about DACA?
#319 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
Yep.

Yeah.
So you were wrong.
What makes you think you're right this time?

#323 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 10:26 PM | Reply

"Talk about Mental Dwarves..."

You voted for the leader of this mental dwarfism.

Do you feel that says anything about you?

#324 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-31 10:27 PM | Reply

"You voted for the leader of this mental dwarfism."

He had bigger ----.

#325 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 10:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You voted for the leader of this mental dwarfism.

Gary Johnson has mental dwarfism? All the more reason to vote for him compared to the three alternatives I didn't vote for.

#326 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 10:32 PM | Reply

Gary Johnson also has tig bitties?

Bonus!

#327 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 10:32 PM | Reply

What this says about you Dannie is that you are terrible at assigning positions, maybe Snoofy can give you some personal lessons.

#328 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 10:33 PM | Reply

#323 Snoofy-

What are you talking about?

What Trump is proposing via EO is unconstitutional for largely the same reasons that DACA/DAPA were unconstitutional.

#329 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-31 10:33 PM | Reply

Jeff, you are assuming that Snoofy understands the basic concept that when someone he supports does the same thing as someone he hates...it is still the same thing.

#330 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 10:35 PM | Reply

Snoofy, I will repost something, once again, that Jeff just posted:

t's wrong when Trump does it. It's wrong when Obama does it. It's wrong when Bush does it. It's wrong when Clinton.....

Take as much time as you need to understand this simple, non-partisan concept.

If you can.

#331 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 10:37 PM | Reply

"What this says about you Dannie is that you are terrible at assigning positions,"

Sorry.

You merely support this mental dwarfism, at nearly every turn.

YUUUUUUGE difference.

#332 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-31 10:37 PM | Reply

You merely support this mental dwarfism, at nearly every turn.

Give me examples, show your work.

I'll wait.

#333 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 10:39 PM | Reply

first of all; (the dear leader) Der Trumpfswore to uphold the Constitution of United States of America during his inauguration. Secondly; it is doubtful he has no idea what the text of the document states. What a pathetic POS.

#334 | Posted by b_al at 2018-10-31 10:44 PM | Reply

"Give me examples"

www.drudge.com

#335 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-31 10:57 PM | Reply

#335

Ok, now show me which of those articles or posts I am "supporting Trump at every turn."

#336 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 11:02 PM | Reply

So... "at nearly every turn"

became..."at every turn"

Already? You're misquoting me already?!?

#337 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-10-31 11:07 PM | Reply

sorry...show me the "nearly" ones.

#338 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 11:09 PM | Reply

:)

#339 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-31 11:14 PM | Reply

If you're being honest, Trump never threatened to write the 14th Amendment out of existence either. He's proposing a very significant change in the interpretation of it as written.

#316 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Honestly, Trump couldn't write dialogue for preschooler comic books, let alone interpret them.

#340 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-10-31 11:20 PM | Reply

"What Trump is proposing via EO is unconstitutional for largely the same reasons that DACA/DAPA were unconstitutional.
#329 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

Only one of those is unconstitutional.

So, you're batting .500, even as you seem to think you're batting a thousand, about being right about EO's being Constitutional or not.

I'm a little surprised you're happy with that average, honestly. But then, perhaps I judge you too harshly.

#341 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-31 11:35 PM | Reply

#342 | POSTED BY HEINRICH

Has anyone ID'd this resurrected clod?

#343 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-11-01 01:44 AM | Reply

"Anyway, the decades-long, ongoing movement of peoples into the USA is the largest movement of humans ever, and is most certainly a declaration of war."

That isn't even close to true. They wouldn't be coming here if there weren't employers willing to hire them and pay them. Thus far, I don't actually see how their presence has harmed this country. Eliminate them and then you go pick the crops...ok? No, I didn't think so.
When we stupidly forget that we are a nation of immigrants we say stupid stuff.
This anti-birthright crap is just red meat for Trump's stupid and hateful base. If he could suggest slaughtering these people with machine guns if they try to enter the U.S. most of his base would buy tickets to watch.

#346 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 06:41 AM | Reply

Hell, premium tickets would allow them to do the shooting and they'd gladly pay an extra $100.00. They are just horrible people. Hillary was absolutely right, they are "deplorables."

#347 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 06:42 AM | Reply

Executive Orders, Executive Memoranda and "Dear Colleague" letters ALL carry the same weight in terms of their impact

They don't all carry the same weight in terms of the subject matter they address. Some deal in the mundane; this in particular seeks to rewrite the Constitution of the United States, a document conservatives claim to worship except when Trump is wiping his ass with it.

You also have yet to prove your implication that Obama issued more of these types of writings than Trump is on pace to. And that's after you expanded the realm of what we're talking about when it was pointed out to you that Trump is on pace to issue far more executive orders than Obama.

My point is not that complicated, and i'm surprised it's receiving argument even from you - Had Obama proppsed to rewrite the Second Amendment, people like you would have had an absolute fit. You know that's true, so your only play is to bothsides this by claiming that Obama also issued EOs of this type even though you have zero examples of him directly attacking the text of the Constitution.

#348 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 07:55 AM | Reply

What Trump is proposing via EO is unconstitutional for largely the same reasons that DACA/DAPA were unconstitutional.

It's actually not, and i still can't tell if you really don't know that or are just pretending not to.

The Constitution relegates most immigration authority to Congress. DACA was, at worst, a failure to comply with that provision (though some well-respected federal judges disagree with that notion) - but it was not a wholesale rewriting of Article 1 by the President.

Do you really not see the difference?

#349 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 08:21 AM | Reply

--They wouldn't be coming here if there weren't employers willing to hire them and pay them.

Yeah, pay them slave wages. Your team is willing to sell-out the American working poor for lower prices for your precious chardonnay. Bunch a traitors to the American working class and especially the most vulnerable of that class.

#350 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-01 08:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

They don't all carry the same weight in terms of the subject matter they address. Some deal in the mundane;

Correct. Some EO's deal in the mundane. Some "Dear colleague" letters have a huge impact. Again, focusing solely on EO's for comparison isn't viewing the big picture. You are actually underscoring my point - it's not the quantity of EO's/E Memoranda/colleague letters that is an issue. Bill Clinton was prolific with all of these at the beginning of his presidency, but they mostly dealt in the mundane and were thus uncontroversial.

this in particular seeks to rewrite the Constitution of the United States,

No, it doesn't. What is being proposed could be done legislatively. What this suggested (it hasn't even been done - just floated) EO would do would be to create legislation by Executive fiat, just like DACA/DAPA. He doesn't have the power to do this with an EO, which is something conservatives and some elected Republicans are saying publicly.

Had Obama proppsed to rewrite the Second Amendment...

Which is a red herring. This proposed EO wouldn't rewrite the 14th Amendment. Earlier this week we had a discussion at length (you participated in it) that demonstrated the Congress could put what is proposed into legislation.

What Trump is suggesting is legislation by Executive fiat, which is something that Obama actually did with some regularity, especially in the latter half of his term. Democrats were either silent or they cheered it on.

#351 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 08:33 AM | Reply

Eliminate them and then you go pick the crops...ok? No, I didn't think so.

It's amazing to me that you fail to see that latent racism in that remark.

When we stupidly forget that we are a nation of LEGAL immigrants we say stupid stuff.

When we deliberately omit what I added in bold we say really stupid stuff.

#352 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 08:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Eliminate them and then you go pick the crops...ok? No, I didn't think so.

It's amazing to me that you fail to see that latent racism in that remark.

Not only racist, but ignorant of the fact that most illegals don't work in the fields. That's just a stereotype. They work in the building trades, hospitality industry, manufacturing, etc.

#353 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-01 08:46 AM | Reply

If I were elected President in 2020, which we all know is never going to happen, in my inaugural address I would cancel every single EO Trump has made. It would be the first sentence of my speech.

BTW, I think Heinrich is a parody. The name sort of gives it away.

#354 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 08:53 AM | Reply

"It's amazing to me that you fail to see that latent racism in that remark."

Nothing racist about it. Immigrants have always supplied cheap labor to this country. Second generation usually gets an education and become quite successful. At least that is exactly how it worked out here in S. Florida. Has absolutely nothing to do with race. It's just reality.

#355 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 08:54 AM | Reply

What is being proposed could be done legislatively.

You keep saying that. Since when can Congress abrogate the Constiyution? And how is that a response anyway? Congress could also impose severe gun restrictions, but if Obama did it himself you'd have ---- a tire iron.

This proposed EO wouldn't rewrite the 14th Amendment.

That is the most disingenuous -------- i've ever seen in my life.

#356 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 08:55 AM | Reply

--Nothing racist about it. [illegal] Immigrants have always supplied cheap labor to this country

Yes it is racist. You're implying brown people can do nothing but dumb labor in the fields. You just want to exploit brown people to save money.

#slaveLaborlover

#357 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-01 09:03 AM | Reply

we had a discussion at length (you participated in it) that demonstrated the Congress could put what is proposed into legislation.

No discussion i ever participated in "demonstrated" anything of the sort.

#358 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 09:05 AM | Reply

No discussion i ever participated in "demonstrated" anything of the sort.

#358 | POSTED BY JOE

Sure it did. You disagreed with it and provided some sources to back up your position. I, and others, provided plenty of sourcing to support the claim that what is being bandied about here can be accomplished legislatively.

This proposed EO wouldn't rewrite the 14th Amendment.
--------
That is the most disingenuous -------- i've ever seen in my life.

#356 | POSTED BY JOE

The ultimate problem is a fundamental disagreement on premise. I have argued that this could be accomplished legislatively. You argue that it can't. We are thus at an impasse. Unless we can square this fundamental disagreement, the rest of our arguments are predicated upon opposing premises. We are essentially talking past each other.

#359 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 09:17 AM | Reply

NO, I'm not saying anything about brown people. My own ancestors, the Irish, went through the same thing and they were white as snow. Take your accusations of racism and but them where the sun don't shine.

#360 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 09:18 AM | Reply

"Sure it did. You disagreed with it and provided some sources to back up your position. I, and others, provided plenty of sourcing to support the claim that what is being bandied about here can be accomplished legislatively."

With a fair and impartial court there is no way it could be done legislatively, it would require an amendment to the Constitution but with the corporate court who knows? It is likely that they would let Dishonest Don get away with whatever he wants to please his stupid and evil racist base. And, that is all this is about.

#361 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 09:20 AM | Reply

The ultimate problem is a fundamental disagreement on premise. I have argued that this could be accomplished legislatively. You argue that it can't. We are thus at an impasse. Unless we can square this fundamental disagreement, the rest of our arguments are predicated upon opposing premises. We are essentially talking past each other.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 09:17 AM | Reply

No it can not. It requires a constitutional amendment to change the 14th. It's a kin to the 21st changing the 18th by abolishment of it's power.

#362 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-01 09:30 AM | Reply

The ultimate problem is a fundamental disagreement on premise.

No. The problem, as it is with most discussions with you these days, is one of false equivalence. Changing what the Constitution says is not akin to exceeding ones authority thereunder (which DACA wasnt even that, according to many). And i have no doubt in my mind that had Obama moved to severely restrict guns with the stroke of a pen, you'd have had a stroke of a different sort.

You still haven't denied that, by the way. Just more bothsidesing.

#363 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 09:57 AM | Reply

The problem, as it is with most discussions with you these days, is one of false equivalence.

No, it isn't. I've articulated (with sources to back me up) that the birthright thing can be changed legislatively. You disagree. Like I said, we are at an impasse.

And i have no doubt in my mind that had Obama moved to severely restrict guns with the stroke of a pen....

My reaction would have been the same as it is to this or DACA/DAPA - he doesn't have the power to do it.

The gun thing is a bad example anyways because the states have all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership as it is, which means he wouldn't be rewriting the 2nd in your scenario, he'd be legislating via executive fiat.

#364 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:02 AM | Reply

Setting aside the constitutionality issue I'm glad this debate is taking place. Unrestricted birthright citizenship is bad policy and it's something that needs to be altered and if the public debate and the courts ultimately decide a constitutional amendment is necessary to make this change, so be it.

#365 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:04 AM | Reply

I've articulated (with sources to back me up) that the birthright thing can be changed legislatively.

I don't recall those sources. What post number was that?

The gun thing is a bad example anyways

No it isn't. An EO on the 2nd would likely have imposed all sorts of conditions on gun ownership. Likewise, an EO on the 14th would likely impose all sorts of conditions on obtaining birthright citizenship. If the administration had any hope of surviving a court challenge, that's how they would do it.

#366 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 10:08 AM | Reply

Setting aside the constitutionality issue I'm glad this debate is taking place. Unrestricted birthright citizenship is bad policy and it's something that needs to be altered and if the public debate and the courts ultimately decide a constitutional amendment is necessary to make this change, so be it.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:04 AM | Reply

Nope sorry you cheapen your own birthright citizenship when you restrict its access. You born here you are an American.

#367 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-01 10:10 AM | Reply

"Setting aside the constitutionality issue I'm glad this debate is taking place. Unrestricted birthright citizenship is bad policy and it's something that needs to be altered and if the public debate and the courts ultimately decide a constitutional amendment is necessary to make this change, so be it."

What utter nonsense. Birthright citizenship is the bases for the nation we are today. I know my great grandparents were never naturalized citizens so was my Grandfather who fought in WWI a citizen, was my Dad who was a Naval aviator in WWII a citizen, am I a citizen today? Are you? This is a bunch of garbage. Birthright citizenship, emphasis on "right." "We hold these truths to be self-evident....." Allowing the fascist monster to unilaterally declare birthright citizenship to not be a basic human right is sickening. Where is America? It is rapidly disappearing right before our eyes.

#368 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 10:10 AM | Reply

BTW, Trump's older kids probably aren't citizens according to his proposed EO.

#369 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 10:11 AM | Reply

Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Don Jr. are birthright citizens of the United States.

#370 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 10:15 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't recall those sources. What post number was that?

It might not have been on this thread.

I'll scroll up and see if I can find it.

If I can't, I'll re-supply the sourcing.

#371 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:20 AM | Reply

BTW You would have to abolish the equal protection clause of the 14th too because you would be in violation of it by denying certain babies birthright citizenship.

#372 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-01 10:24 AM | Reply

Jeff,

I'd strongly suggest that you read the Wong Kim Ark case. Not because i think it is directly analogous (it's not, but it's close), but because the 6-2 majority made a painstaking effort to explain the history behind the 14th amendment, and the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," all the way back to English law. This is far more comprehensive than the cherry-picked history that will accompany any ideologue's writing on either side of the issue.

www.law.cornell.edu

#373 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 10:29 AM | Reply

See the following:

#125 #132 #148 #151

#374 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:30 AM | Reply

www.law.cornell.edu

#373 | POSTED BY JOE

Will do and thank you for sharing.

#375 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:31 AM | Reply

Well, it's a LOT of reading. This is going to take me a while...

#376 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:34 AM | Reply

I should have warned about that. It's worth it to fully understand the issue IMO.

I'll check those links.

#377 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 10:37 AM | Reply

No worries. I agree with you, it's worth it to fully understand the issue.

#378 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-01 10:44 AM | Reply

I'm in the National Affairs piece linked to through #125, and this is the authors' primary argument on this subject:

"Broadly speaking, when the Constitution itself does not answer important questions with clarity, decision-making should usually be left to the people's elected representatives in Congress, so long as they do not violate fundamental rights. This properly leaves Congress with the authority to decide the question of birthright citizenship for these children."
I cannot agree with the premise that the Constitution is unclear on this topic. The Fourteenth Amendment uses some of the most unambiguous and forceful language found anywhere in our founding document, and the century+ of Supreme Court precedent leaves little doubt as to what the document means.

I don't mean to suggest that creative lawyers won't be able to come up with an argument to the contrary. My own opinion is that these authors are manufacturing ambiguity where none exists.

#379 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 10:47 AM | Reply

I Disagree Joe NOT with you but the block quoted piece. The final arbitrator of the constitution is the courts. Not the legislature. The legislature would add their political bias to the ruling while the courts are SUPPOSED to be impartial dispassionate body.

#380 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-11-01 10:56 AM | Reply

"I don't mean to suggest that creative lawyers won't be able to come up with an argument to the contrary."

Along that line, realize the basis for "corporate personhood" is based on a totally dishonest interpretation by a corrupt SC. The very idea that the founders wanted corporations to be considered "people" is a slap in the founders' faces, they are spinning in their graves. And also the court, itself, did not declare corporations to be people, it was just a head note that a clerk included in an opinion (Santa Clara v Southern Pacific) but which was not actually part of the opinion.
So, if Trump can take away birthright citizenship I hope the next President uses the same power to eliminate corporate personhood.

#381 | Posted by danni at 2018-11-01 11:01 AM | Reply

-Unrestricted birthright citizenship is bad policy and it's something that needs to be altered and if the public debate and the courts ultimately decide a constitutional amendment is necessary to make this change, so be it.

I don't know if I agree with that.

So, what do you want? If you could write the law...what would it look like?

this question is for all of you. forget the process (EO vs legislative, etc).

what should our policy be? stays the way it is with no alterations or what alterations would you make??

#382 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-01 11:03 AM | Reply

what should our policy be? stays the way it is with no alterations or what alterations would you make??

#382 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Our "policy" should be what it's always been.

America is more than what is inside our borders. America is an idea.

Rather than build walls and become isolationists we should spread the idea that is America to the world and then they would not need to come here for a better life.

#383 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-01 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#382 I'd personally leave it as-is, with the caveat that if parents enter the country illegally and have a child on US soil, those parents shouldn't necessarily get preference for legal status because that encourages illegal entry. But I firmly believe that someone born here should be a US citizen - to do otherwise would create a permanent underclass of people who never chose where to be born and should be given the opportunity to thrive here.

#384 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

for what it's worth...I agree with Donner and Joe.

#385 | Posted by eberly at 2018-11-01 11:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#364

NW, and interestingly enough echos the GOP platform on this issue, which diverges from Trump's metaphorical wall in a number of key areas.

#386 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-01 12:00 PM | Reply

"You and Trump may have a beef with that as a policy, but let's not lie about what the Constitution says, mmkay?"

The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether aliens who entered the country illegally, and are thus not legally recognized as permanent residents, were intended to be excluded in the same way as foreign diplomats and invaders. It could probably go either way.

#387 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-01 01:24 PM | Reply

It could probably go either way.

#387 | Posted by sentinel

Only in your Trump addled mind.

It is not going either way... it's not going to change. Congress does not have the will. And it will never make it to the Supreme Court.

Humpy is getting desperate and throwing everything at the wall just to see what sticks. And this just more fodder for the weak minded and easily distracted.

#388 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-01 02:48 PM | Reply

interestingly enough echos the GOP platform on this issue

Really? What party is Lindsay Graham in?

I scrolled through the 2016 platform and see zero support for birthright citizenship in line with my comment, though I admit I had to look away in disgust more than once so I might have missed something.

#389 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 03:06 PM | Reply

I'd also point out that since 2007, Republicans in Congress have introduced a "Birthright Citizenship Act" directly at odds with my post at least nine times. In 2009, probably the height of their racist temper-tantrums, they garnered 95 co-sponsors.

www.govtrack.us

#390 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 03:19 PM | Reply

2012 GOP Platform:

"Faithful to the "self-evident" truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. "

2016 GOP Platform:

"... Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to children before birth."

Now look at the 14th Amendment and tell me how you can amend it without extending the protections of citizenship to an unborn fetus. There is an obvious conflict with other proposals in the GOP platform, but the GOP's emotions run roughshod right over these logical inconsistencies.

#391 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-01 05:57 PM | Reply

The GOP, on one hand wants to remove birthright citizenship, and on the other hand extend the protections via citizenship at the point of conception.

#392 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-01 06:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#392

So that someone is a citizen until the moment of birth. Funny, that.

#393 | Posted by Zed at 2018-11-01 06:05 PM | Reply

#393 - legislating by demagogy will do that!

#394 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-01 06:13 PM | Reply

#392 If they could openly say "but only white fetuses," they would. There's always 2020.

#395 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 06:27 PM | Reply

"#392 If they could openly say "but only white fetuses," they would. There's always 2020"

What you just wrote is as stupid as saying the majority in the other party is anti-white.

#396 | Posted by sentinel at 2018-11-01 06:38 PM | Reply

You don't have to be "anti-White" to be for equal treatment.
It's not black or white.
It's not net-zero.

#397 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-01 06:42 PM | Reply

Having said that, the GOP loves playing footsie with authoritarians, fascists, and nationalists.
Hell, they even elected a self-proclaimed Nationalist.
So Joe's comment is more true than not.

If the GOP doesn't like it? They need to do what the GOP was famous for saying to the Muslims: Root out the evil radicals within. Denounce the ideology.

#398 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-01 06:50 PM | Reply

What Trump is suggesting is legislation by Executive fiat, which is something that Obama actually did with some regularity, especially in the latter half of his term. Democrats were either silent or they cheered it on.
#351 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

All the more reason for Conservatives to be against this. Political points via party hypocrisy identification is useless, IMO.

#399 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 06:52 PM | Reply

What you just wrote is as stupid as saying the majority in the other party is anti-white.

Sorry, the leader of your party called himself a nationalist and openly supports neo-nazis, and the rest of your party has the hoods off. You can't bothsides racism anymore.

#400 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-01 06:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#377 | POSTED BY JOE
#378 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

THANK YOU GENTLEMEN!

I'm learning!!!!!

#401 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 07:00 PM | Reply

Rather than build walls and become isolationists we should spread the idea that is America to the world and then they would not need to come here for a better life.
#383 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Agreed, but this is exactly what many countries (or leaders of countries) fear. America is the shining city on the hill, which also attracts the derision of many envious rulers.

#402 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 07:03 PM | Reply

"Unrestricted birthright citizenship is bad policy"

Thanks, Capitalism!

#403 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 07:04 PM | Reply

Humpy is getting desperate and throwing everything at the wall just to see what sticks. And this just more fodder for the weak minded and easily distracted.

#388 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Yup!

NW

#404 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-11-01 07:05 PM | Reply

Rather than build walls and become isolationists we should spread the idea that is America to the world and then they would not need to come here for a better life.
#383 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

^
This is called the Arsenal of Democracy and coupled with the Marshall Plan it's why Europe exceeds America on human rights and health care and education and public transportation and consumer protection and labor rights and showing ------- on broadcast TV.

#405 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 07:07 PM | Reply

"What you just wrote is as stupid as saying the majority in the other party is anti-white."

Anti-good white or anti-bad white?
There's two kinds, right?
Like swastikas.

#406 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-01 07:13 PM | Reply

I firmly believe that someone born here should be a US citizen - to do otherwise would create a permanent underclass of people who never chose where to be born ... here.
#384 | POSTED BY JOE

Very well said.

Bears repeating.

#407 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-01 07:32 PM | Reply

Conservative, Fascist, NAZI,

Same thing

FTFY

#408 | Posted by whodaman at 2018-11-02 12:21 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort