Trump To Ban Anchor Babies

[Asaltweapon]

You want immigrants to go through the legal process yet at the same time cheer Trump for making it impossible to come here legally.

Conservatives: We just want immigrants to come here legally.

Also Conservatives: Make the legal process impossible.

"After failing to get Congress to institute the 40 percent cut in legal immigration he sought, Trump is trying to achieve administratively what he couldn't legislatively—by wrapping each legal immigration category in red tape and handing his bureaucrats sweeping powers to deny applications for the flimsiest of reasons."

Trump Is Building a Wall of Bureaucracy

You write as if you agree with this invasion. WTF did I write I was in agreement with the EO?

 

[Jason m]

If Congress would work with the president and build the dam wall and beef up the boarders like they should be this problem all but goes away for the most part.

Then work on rounding up the illegals with ICE and we won't have to worry about what the true intentions of the 14th are.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The figure is bound to be a lot higher today, given new research showing that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is at least 22 million, at least double prior estimation. There are as many as 400,000 children born every year who the hardworking U.S. taxpayers have to educate, and for whom they provide health care and food stamps. The Center estimates that the annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers of children born to illegal immigrants is a staggering $2.4 billion.

 

[Horrible]

Irony: Eveyone here cheering Trump for his unconstitutional EO was livid over Obama doing the exact same thing: issuing unconstitutional EO's.

Birthright citizenship was born out of Executive Action. Therefore an EO should be able to overturn it. Just like DACA. I am not advocating to Exec action to solve this problem (prefer more permanent solution).

No statutes exist. The COTUS is unclear at best. If you believe that COTUS is clear, give this a read (posted by Bfatz over in the Trump Megathread)

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment had enacted into law, 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.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as All persons born in the United States who are not alien, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law debates that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

 

[Horrible]

You want immigrants to go through the legal process yet at the same time cheer Trump for making it impossible to come here legally.

Conservatives: We just want immigrants to come here legally.

Also Conservatives: Make the legal process impossible.

"After failing to get Congress to institute the 40 percent cut in legal immigration he sought, Trump is trying to achieve administratively what he couldn't legislatively—by wrapping each legal immigration category in red tape and handing his bureaucrats sweeping powers to deny applications for the flimsiest of reasons."

Trump Is Building a Wall of Bureaucracy

I believe that we should have a merit-based immigration system and set a number of people that we will legally accept into the country yearly.

What I don't believe is that wherever a woman's vagina is located at the time of childberth should determine the citizen of her child. Then subsequent to that have that child invite it's entire extended family to come live in the US.

 

[Horrible]

If a visitor or illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then they didn't break US law. You cannot break US law if you are not subject to its jurisdiction.

So a tourist or a visitor from a foreign nation would qualify as a US Citizen?

 

[Asaltweapon]

So a tourist or a visitor from a foreign nation would qualify as a US Citizen?

If they dropped the kid here it could be. Crazy huh?

 

[FiremanBob]

I see here a lot of people who don't want to make the effort to understand the history and original intent of the 14th Amendment asserting with certainty that Trump is tearing up the Constitution. I also see several who should know better use invalid analogies to make dark predictions about what it means for our rights enumerated in other Amendments.

Ignorance is not a valid basis for an argument.

 

[babygorilla]

ETA: I will say an EO is not the way to do this and Congress needs to at least pass a law.

The problem with that argument is that it WILL NEVER be addressed if done the right way. By forcing SCOTUS into the argument via EO, it forces Congress to address it. Actually a pretty smart power play, if you don't care for political power or reputation.

 

[Bob P]

Birthright citizenship was born out of Executive Action. Therefore an EO should be able to overturn it. Just like DACA. I am not advocating to Exec action to solve this problem (prefer more permanent solution).

No statutes exist. The COTUS is unclear at best. If you believe that COTUS is clear, give this a read (posted by Bfatz over in the Trump Megathread)

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

That blog post from Federalist is a beautiful, well reasoned argument. It falls short however on the allegiance argument.

First, as I’ve pointed out before there has been no definitive clarification on ‘allegiance’ as being the standard definition of ‘jurisdiction’ the author is offering an opinion - just like so many authors have offered opinions on ‘shall not be infringed’. It will ultimately be up to the courts. Based on their interpretations to date I don’t think you’re going to get the result you want.

Second, for the sake of this discussion I will temporarily grant the potential of the author being right - that allegiance IS the meaning. This would, as he points out, rule out diplomats and tourists as they have no intention of staying here. It is consistent with Ark as the Ark family had created a life here in the US and, in fact, expressed a desire to stay here. Ie they were allegiant to the US. If this is the standard, how can we rule out the illegals? By being here with the intent to permency they’ve renounced any allegiance to a foreign power per that standard.

Finally, if you actually read the transcripts of the debates - as I had to many moons ago in college - without the cherry-picked phrases and editorializing by others telling you what Sen Howard REALLY meant, it’s clear his intent was to include immigrants in the scope of the first clause of the 14th. It was not just about slaves.

Last point then I’m done with this discussion: this didn’t come about via EO, this has been evolving law since 1898. No it’s not ‘settled law’. There is no such thing as ‘settled law’ w/o a SCOTUS ruling. If you truly are a supporter of the Founders vision of America you are not a supporter of EO as a means to ‘get things done’. You don’t fight tyranny by imposing tyranny. Washington was offered the position of King, he said no. The constitution specifically LIMITS the power of the POTUS. He’s not supposed to be a Latin American style Caudillo. Literally every step you take down that path even with the best intentions makes it worse.

 

[boatman]

The problem with that argument is that it WILL NEVER be addressed if done the right way. By forcing SCOTUS into the argument via EO, it forces Congress to address it. Actually a pretty smart power play, if you don't care for political power or reputation.

Not how it works. The courts will address whether or not an EO can overturn an amendment of the Const. It will not initially address the contents of the EO.

For a forum that has so many members that criticize those who don't follow the consitution that many on this thread want the President to act like a king. Don't like the law, change the law by the rules in place to do so. The president has the house and the senate. Make some laws, and stop complaining.

 

[boatman]

The figure is bound to be a lot higher today, given new research showing that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is at least 22 million, at least double prior estimation. There are as many as 400,000 children born every year who the hardworking U.S. taxpayers have to educate, and for whom they provide health care and food stamps. The Center estimates that the annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers of children born to illegal immigrants is a staggering $2.4 billion.

I am in FL lots. Crap ton of illegals here. Pretty much everyone is working. Don't have your cites, but it doesn't show what they pay in taxes. Definitely want to keep criminals out, but those who are here who pay taxes, work jobs, don't take anything from gov to me are an asset to the country. My only first hand experience is with one I know who has been here 20+ years, works in the resturant industry, pays taxes, has a son who is a citizen and is in the armed forces. My solution would be to make him a resident, take a % of his pay to fine him for coming here illegaly, but then he pays his taxes, has insurance etc.

If you want to keep illegals out, then a major solution is to force employers to register all their employees. We have 3.9% unemployment. Who is going to do crappy jobs like plucking chickens? It is always the first generation immigrants who do the crappy jobs, whether chinese, italian, polish, irish, etc. Employers don't want to register as they won't have the workers they can pay as little to these guys as the currently do.

 

[W.E.C]

Trump definitely dropped the ball , with the wall is coming if ya vote for me,

And Mexico is going to pay for it.

Really? Do it already.


Jus soli has nothing to do with this.

 

[W.E.C]

I am in FL lots. Crap ton of illegals here. Pretty much everyone is working. Don't have your cites, but it doesn't show what they pay in taxes. Definitely want to keep criminals out, but those who are here who pay taxes, work jobs, don't take anything from gov to me are an asset to the country. My only first hand experience is with one I know who has been here 20+ years, works in the resturant industry, pays taxes, has a son who is a citizen and is in the armed forces. My solution would be to make him a resident, take a % of his pay to fine him for coming here illegaly, but then he pays his taxes, has insurance etc.

If you want to keep illegals out, then a major solution is to force employers to register all their employees. We have 3.9% unemployment. Who is going to do crappy jobs like plucking chickens? It is always the first generation immigrants who do the crappy jobs, whether chinese, italian, polish, irish, etc. Employers don't want to register as they won't have the workers they can pay as little to these guys as the currently do.

And who is going to pick the cotton?

Come on man!

 

[meh]

If you truly are a supporter of the Founders vision of America you are not a supporter of EO as a means to ‘get things done’. You don’t fight tyranny by imposing tyranny.

That's how I see it. Common sense alone suggests that the intention of the 14th Amendment was not to provide citizenship to the children of vacationers or illegal aliens. However, Congress can enact a law that makes explicit the treatment of the offspring of visitors and illegal aliens, and the judiciary, ultimately the SCOTUS, would no doubt be required to determine whether such a law is constitutional or not. I don't see a proper role for the executive branch in this context apart from securing the borders and administration/enforcement of whatever laws actually exist.

 

[Bob P]

If you really want a good, erudite breakdown of this issue, this is a good article from National Review - a center-right publication. You may not like what they say, but they usually get the analysis correct.

Birthright Citizenship & Constitution: We’re Probably Stuck With It | National Review

 

[babygorilla]

Not how it works. The courts will address whether or not an EO can overturn an amendment of the Const. It will not initially address the contents of the EO.

For a forum that has so many members that criticize those who don't follow the consitution that many on this thread want the President to act like a king. Don't like the law, change the law by the rules in place to do so. The president has the house and the senate. Make some laws, and stop complaining.

Seems to me that this tweet LITERALLY shows what I was pointing out. It forces congress to do something WHETHER there is an EO or not.

Sometimes I think people just don't get Trump.


View: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1057286251517116416

 

[JohnZ]

Isn't it funny that to the left "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means everything and "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means nothing.

 

[AHM]

I am in FL lots. Crap ton of illegals here. Pretty much everyone is working. Don't have your cites, but it doesn't show what they pay in taxes. Definitely want to keep criminals out, but those who are here who pay taxes, work jobs, don't take anything from gov to me are an asset to the country. My only first hand experience is with one I know who has been here 20+ years, works in the resturant industry, pays taxes, has a son who is a citizen and is in the armed forces. My solution would be to make him a resident, take a % of his pay to fine him for coming here illegaly, but then he pays his taxes, has insurance etc.

Whose stolen identity is he using?

 

[boatman]

Seems to me that this tweet LITERALLY shows what I was pointing out. It forces congress to do something WHETHER there is an EO or not.

Sometimes I think people just don't get Trump.


View: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1057286251517116416

Good start. But we need total comprehensive immigration legistlation. Not just addressing the birthright issue, but everything. Trump has had total control with both parties for the past 2 years to come up with a solution for this and health care. I am not sure if ANY legislation for either has been proposed. Lots of tweets, no solutions. If Repubs lose the house in this election, nothing gets done at all.

 

[babygorilla]

Good start. But we need total comprehensive immigration legistlation. Not just addressing the birthright issue, but everything. Trump has had total control with both parties for the past 2 years to come up with a solution for this and health care. I am not sure if ANY legislation for either has been proposed. Lots of tweets, no solutions. If Repubs lose the house in this election, nothing gets done at all.

All of a sudden the President CONTROLS the Never Trumpers, Swamp Rats, and Dims? Threatening an EO on this gets them talking. Hell, writing one gets them moving. Otherwise none of them will do ANYTHING.

 

[Lip]

Anything that cuts down the number of these invaders works for me. The 14th amendment was not written for migrants.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Nobody knows what his EO will say... maybe we'll just open "birthing centers" on boats in international waters, or at GITMO.

 

[Dadstoys]

I'm just not sure what part of ILLEGAL it is that some people are hung up on.
Since when do we allow people to benefit from an ILLEGAL activity.
If I steal your car or rob your house does that make your stuff mine now ?
It's a long stretch to claim the 14th allows people who jump a boarder and drop a crotch fruit to benefit.

 

[Picton]

I'm just not sure what part of ILLEGAL it is that some people are hung up on.
Since when do we allow people to benefit from an ILLEGAL activity.
If I steal you car or rob your house does that make your stuff mine now ?
It's a long stretch to claim the 14th allows people who jump a boarder and drop a crotch fruit to benefit.

Because this jus soli debate isn’t about the illegal. It’s about the dropped crotch fruit, who is NOT illegal under current law. Who is, in fact, a citizen. Sins of the father, and all that.

The argument can be made (and is) that it’s the crotch fruit that’s benefiting, not the illegal. If the crotch fruit grows up and sponsors the illegal, that’s a separate issue legally.

 

[Dadstoys]

Because this jus soli debate isn’t about the illegal. It’s about the dropped crotch fruit, who is NOT illegal under current law. Who is, in fact, a citizen. Sins of the father, and all that.

The argument can be made (and is) that it’s the crotch fruit that’s benefiting, not the illegal. If the crotch fruit grows up and sponsors the illegal, that’s a separate issue legally.

Fair enough .
Deport the parents and keep the kid .
Put them up for adoption.
No golden ticket for criminals.

 

[Asaltweapon]

Crotch Fruit?



Keepa

 

[BUMPA01603]

 

[JohnZ]

Because this jus soli debate isn’t about the illegal. It’s about the dropped crotch fruit, who is NOT illegal under current law. Who is, in fact, a citizen. Sins of the father, and all that.

The argument can be made (and is) that it’s the crotch fruit that’s benefiting, not the illegal. If the crotch fruit grows up and sponsors the illegal, that’s a separate issue legally.

Except the crotch fruit can, at 21 (or 18) sponsor the illegal and any others they want.
Saw this on Laura Ingram last night. They do this to avoid conscription in the home country's military, for the education and as a sort of retirement for the parents.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Ireland voted against "anchor babies" in 2004 with 79 per cent for ban