Trump targets U.S. birthright citizenship as elections loom

[rudi49jr]

So the constitution is just a 'guideline' that can easily be changed in this instance, but rock-solid and carved in stone when it comes to the right to bear arms?

[Puccini]

4 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

It sure gives the Anti-Trumpsters a reason to post and beat their drums.

I doubt that this is the reason why Trump made this announcement.

[suzannegoh]

18 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So Trump is now claiming he can change the US Constitution with an executive order. Did someone tell him about Prayut's Article 44 powers?

 

Those who think this is a good idea should consider the consequences.  If this President can repeal a constitutional amendment through executive order, so can future presidents.  The next President might decide to repeal the second amendment.  Or a Christian teetotaler might repeal the 21st amendment and bring back Prohibition.  Does anyone know if Mike Pence drinks?

 

If you want to end birthright citizenship you have to modify or repeal the 14th amendment.  End of story.

Yeah, that’s a really bad idea, but what Trump is claiming is subtly different than that.  What Trump is claiming is not that he can change the Constitution but that the 14th Amendment is being interpreted incorrectly.   His theory sounds pretty thin to me but Trump could use an executive order denying citizenship to the American born children of illegal immigrants to force the Supreme Court’s hand and make it explicitly rule on a case involving parents who are both in the US illegally.  The landmark Supreme Court case of 1898 involved the child of non-citizens who were legally in the US.

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

A constitutional amendment is not needed as it is up to courts interpretation.

This would defnitely remove some incentive to migration via child birth.

That said, tackling immigration reform was a campaign pledge .

That may have been his intent, but that is not the wording of the amendment. 

 

"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

Courts may take into account the intent of the authors of amendments, but not to the degree of completely over-ruling the very clear wording.

[HAKAPALITA]

Oh that nasty Mr Trump. Why doesnt he follow Europe , let all the Shit in and give them House ,Money,and ignore those who built USA.

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, suzannegoh said:

Yeah, that’s a really bad idea, but what Trump is claiming is subtly different than that.  What Trump is claiming is not that he can change the Constitution but that the 14th Amendment is being interpreted incorrectly.   His theory sounds pretty thin to me but Trump could use an executive order denying citizenship to the American born children of illegal immigrants to force the Supreme Court’s hand and make it explicitly rule on a case involving parents who are both in the US illegally.  The landmark Supreme Court case of 1898 involved the child of non-citizens who were legally in the US.

So his intent is to initiate a futile attempt to get a Supreme Court ruling that is clearly at odds with the wording of the 14th amendment.  Seems like pre-election smoke and mirrors to me.

[Puccini]

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

...Didn't Thailand even offer this prior to 1972?

Yes, Thailand operated a system of pure Jus soli prior to 1972.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Oh that nasty Mr Trump. Why doesnt he follow Europe , let all the Shit in and give them House ,Money,and ignore those who built USA.

In a constitutional democracy the President is expected to follow the constitution.  Did you know that?

[Becker]

7 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Oh that nasty Mr Trump. Why doesnt he follow Europe , let all the Shit in and give them House ,Money,and ignore those who built USA.

Who built the USA? You mean all the descendants of immigrants?

[HAKAPALITA]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In a constitutional democracy the President is expected to follow the constitution.  Did you know that?

Want that drafted before Islam turned up.?.

[suzannegoh]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

So his intent is to initiate a futile attempt to get a Supreme Court ruling that is clearly at odds with the wording of the 14th amendment.  Seems like pre-election smoke and mirrors to me.

Pre-election smoke & mirrors is right.  I don't think his intent is to do it, but to float the spectre of it and get everyone excited.  Trump usually benefits politically when everyone is so upset that they stop listening to each other.  And, once again, everyone is taking the bait.

[HAKAPALITA]

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

Who built the USA? You mean all the descendants of immigrants?

Well done , those who turned up to nothing.

[Becker]

4 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Want that drafted before Islam turned up.?.

Are you drunk? That reply only makes sense if you're totally wasted.

[Srinivas]

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

That may have been his intent, but that is not the wording of the amendment. 

 

"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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

Courts may take into account the intent of the authors of amendments, but not to the degree of completely over-ruling the very clear wording.

no amendment to 14th needed. Just like interpretations, restrictions placed on second amendment without changing it.

Anyway its a hot potato for midterms and the Democrats have to argue the opposite side to their tax paying constituents while the county, city,state budgets, pension obligations are under severe stress. 

 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Want that drafted before Islam turned up.?.

Are you arguing that the US Constitution is obsolete and should be ignored?

[Srinivas]

8 minutes ago, suzannegoh said:

Pre-election smoke & mirrors is right.  I don't think his intent is to do it, but to float the spectre of it and get everyone excited.  Trump usually benefits politically when everyone is so upset that they stop listening to each other.  And, once again, everyone is taking the bait.

This will be a tricky issue for democrats. 

[suzannegoh]

9 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

no amendment to 14th needed. Just like interpretations, restrictions placed on second amendment without changing it.

Anyway its a hot potato for midterms and the Democrats have to argue the opposite side to their tax paying constituents while the county, city,state budgets, pension obligations are under severe stress. 

 

Considering that the main purpose was to unambiguously give freed slaves the right to citizenship, it’s understandable that the authors of the amendment wouldn’t have put in an exclusion for children of parents who were in the US illegally.  Had they done that southern states would have come up with creative ways to categorize former slaves as being illegals. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by suzannegoh

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

no amendment to 14th needed. Just like interpretations, restrictions placed on second amendment without changing it.

Anyway its a hot potato for midterms and the Democrats have to argue the opposite side to their tax paying constituents while the county, city,state budgets, pension obligations are under severe stress. 

 

The second amendment is sufficiently vague to be interpreted many ways.  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."  is pretty clear.

 

But you are correct that Trump's intent is to make the election as much about immigration as possible.  His only interest in birthright citizenship is as a tool to rev up his base.

[heybruce]

7 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

This will be a tricky issue for democrats. 

Not really.  They are framing it as Trump defying the US Constitution, which he is.

[AGareth2]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

Well Mr Trump and his progeny will surely be unaffected,

wasn't his mum an illegal?

[Srinivas]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

But you are correct that Trump's intent is to make the election as much about immigration as possible.  His only interest in birthright citizenship is as a tool to rev up his base.

 Democrats no different. They are no angels either.

 

[Srinivas]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Not really.  They are framing it as Trump defying the US Constitution, which he is.

So the democrats are strict constitutionalists now lol 

funny

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, Srinivas said:

So the democrats are strict constitutionalists now lol 

funny

If the Republicans want to argue otherwise, they will have to come up with an example of the Democrats pushing something that is clearly unconstitutional.  Any ideas?

[esqy]

Gay marriage???

 

[NanLaew]

8 hours ago, Credo said:

“You know, as a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process,” Ryan said.

Yes, almost but not quite as long as the very, very, very lengthy constitutional process to legislate term limits for the nominally elected, DC swamp creatures.

[JAG]

2 hours ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Oh that nasty Mr Trump. Why doesnt he follow Europe , let all the Shit in and give them House ,Money,and ignore those who built USA.

 

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

In a constitutional democracy the President is expected to follow the constitution.  Did you know that?

You know, I rather suspect that neither knowledge of the US Constitution, nor any understanding, or for that matter interest in, democracy, played any part in that bigoted and essentially unfounded outburst!????

[zaphod reborn]

9 hours ago, suzannegoh said:

Trump can't change it with an executive order but whether or not birth right citizenship is appropriate is a legitimate issue.

Sure it is.  Go ahead and start a constitutional amendment drive.  Good luck with that.

[mtls2005]

Must be interesting in the Conway home these days?

 

Clearly.

 

 

 

[Srinivas]

Democrat senator from Neveda : Harry Reid

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal alien? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission to give birth to a child, we reward that child with US citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides - and that's a lot of services. Is it any wonder that 2/3 of the babies born at taxpayer expense at county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?"

on video in front of the senate

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1057683481793302528?s=20

 

 

[Srinivas]