Trump To Ban Anchor Babies

In all fairness to President Trump, it is tiresome to see his every move underestimated with utmost assurance, e.g. that he is protectionist and doesn't understand the value of free trade, nor the damages to be brought by a so-called trade war, merely because he proposes tariffs. His detractors assume that he wants the tariffs. I assume that he wants to use them as bargaining chips to trade away. Here, he may not be really thinking an EO will just do the trick. Why? People can argue about what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means with respect to those who are born here to citizens of other countries and are either here illegally or are only sojourners. This is because we lack a direct SCOTUS ruling on the matter. There is a line somewhere, and the only way to find it is to probe for it. The founders conceived that this would happen in response to congress passing legislation. However, as we've seen, an EO can get questions moving through the federal courts very quickly, and once an answer is in hand, what can be done without amending the Constitution may be much more clear. Anything the legislature might do to get the ball rolling will clearly take far longer to produce a court case appropriate to bring the matter to a head. Removing the "that's unconstitutional" objection to a proposal would certainly give it a better chance of passing if, in fact, it is not.
 
glockforlife said:
This! No President should be able to amend the Constitution by Executive Order and actually no President can. There is a process for constitutional amendments.
Click to expand...

I wonder what you think about FDR's executive order 9066 that sent tens of thousands of actual citizens, not people here illegally to internment camps with no trial and no due process whatsoever. Could you point out to me anywhere in the constitution that says it's okay for the president to suspend the constitution when that action happened?
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I wonder what you think about FDR's executive order 9066 that sent tens of thousands of actual citizens, not people here illegally to internment camps with no trial and no due process whatsoever. Could you point out to me anywhere in the constitution that says it's okay for the president to suspend the constitution when that action happened?
Click to expand...
I don't agree with it, but Exigent circumstances
 
This may actually work. The 14th amendments term of "jurisdiction" has never been adjudicated. There are no surplus of words in the Constitution. So what does it mean.

Trump means to say that is requires at least one parent to be a citizen. This meaning they are within "jurisdiction there of"

We are going to find out. They'll be an instant lawsuit and the courts will have to decide.
 
ThePreBanMan said:
This may actually work. The 14th amendments term of "jurisdiction" has never been adjudicated. There are no surplus of words in the Constitution. So what does it mean.

Trump means to say that is requires at least one parent to be a citizen. This meaning they are within "jurisdiction there of"

We are going to find out. They'll be an instant lawsuit and the courts will have to decide.
Click to expand...
This is what I was talking about. Is an EO going to succeed? NO, it will likely be struck down ASAP (as it would with 2A changing EO's), BUT it gets the courts involved and forces the SCOTUS and PROBABLY congress to take action. It forces their hand. Again, if you DGAS about future political clout, it is a smart move.
 
meh said:
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.
Click to expand...
Common sense would also suggest that the location of a woman's vagina at birth shouldn't provide citizenship anymore than visitors are provided citizenship.

I agree that EO is not the best path forward for several reasons. Congress enacting a law to end this insanity would be the best path forward. Ideally, an Amendment to COTUS would be the ideal path, but that isn't likely to occur.

Part of me thinks that Trump let the cat out of the bag on this to start the conversation.
 
babygorilla said:
This is what I was talking about. Is an EO going to succeed? NO, it will likely be struck down ASAP (as it would with 2A changing EO's), BUT it gets the courts involved and forces the SCOTUS and PROBABLY congress to take action. It forces their hand. Again, if you DGAS about future political clout, it is a smart move.
Click to expand...
I doubt an EO regarding 2A would be struck down as quickly. Lawsuits and Injunctions were filed IMMEDIATELY with Trumps "travel ban". The same thing should have happened with many of Obama's EOs and should have happened here in MA with Mora's 7/20/16 crap as well.
 
Bob P said:
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
Click to expand...

I prefer this analysis: Levin and Horowitz: Yes, Trump can end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants with an executive order

Not so keen on the Paul Ryan, Wall Street Journal, Never Trump, Bushies, NR, etc. types.
 
Horrible said:
I doubt an EO regarding 2A would be struck down as quickly. Lawsuits and Injunctions were filed IMMEDIATELY with Trumps "travel ban". The same thing should have happened with many of Obama's EOs and should have happened here in MA with Mora's 7/20/16 crap as well.
Click to expand...

President Hillary Clinton's Executive Order to IMMEDIATELY require Registration of every Firearm would never be challenged seriously.

And that would be just the beginning.
 
Horrible said:
I doubt an EO regarding 2A would be struck down as quickly. Lawsuits and Injunctions were filed IMMEDIATELY with Trumps "travel ban". The same thing should have happened with many of Obama's EOs and should have happened here in MA with Mora's 7/20/16 crap as well.
Click to expand...
It DID and IS. Even MOOORAH's B.S. Nothing happens OVERNIGHT in .Gov, unless it ISN'T challenged. It has to go to court, which could take YEARS if they don't want to address it, months if they do.
Again, this is a means to an end. Get it in front of SCOTUS.
 
babygorilla said:
It DID and IS. Even MOOORAH's B.S. Nothing happens OVERNIGHT in .Gov, unless it ISN'T challenged. It has to go to court, which could take YEARS if they don't want to address it, months if they do.
Again, this is a means to an end. Get it in front of SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
No. Mora's crap has been upheld and has not been struck down, YET! Its been over 2 years. An injunction was granted on Trump's travel ban within DAYS!
 
I think everyone can agree on that the 14th was a poorly written amendment. It was created by lawyers. Why was it even needed when the 13th amendment gave slaves freedom? The usage of the word "person" opened up a can of worms. Look at the second definition of the word "corporation". It's a "person" too. Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

It let open the door to the corporations (i.e. railroads first) obtaining more rights and power and its not just tinfoil material:
View: https://www.npr.org/2014/07/28/335288388/when-did-companies-become-people-excavating-the-legal-evolution


They used it to set the precedence here Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. - Wikipedia.

"From the moment the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, lawyers for corporations — particularly railroad companies — wanted to use that 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection to make sure that the states didn't unequally treat corporations," Moglen says.

Excellent book on the 14th Amendment:
https://www.amazon.com/Gangs-Americ...BacB5Em-EUWlmKWq_rE7azby5MAym7P1NbkFyMDcFbBds

The saying goes "the 13th amendment freed the slaves, 14th amendment enslaved us all". Before the civil war you were a state citizen first by way of the 10th amendment. As a federal citizen you are responsible for the debt and the debt "shall not be questioned" according to the 14th amendment! It paved the way for the 16th amendment - the income tax.
 
Last edited:
Chevy 2 65 said:
No. as I said I DON'T agree with it.
Click to expand...
It should always be like, so. With and only with a court ordered warrant . Why are you here, what are you searching for and where. No more no less and I get to record the entire encounter. Because that old rag in DC no one pays attention to ..says so. Exigent circumstances infringes on that basic right ! I don't need nor want the .gov protecting me. Manage the security of this nation and don't worry about me.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I wonder what you think about FDR's executive order 9066 that sent tens of thousands of actual citizens, not people here illegally to internment camps with no trial and no due process whatsoever. Could you point out to me anywhere in the constitution that says it's okay for the president to suspend the constitution when that action happened?
Click to expand...
Wasn't illegal those folks mostly had dual citizenships . They wouldn't recend the nation's we were at war with. On this point I agreed with FDR.
 
Chevy 2 65 said:
No. as I said I DON'T agree with it.
Click to expand...

You also said, “but exigent circumstances.”

The implication I get from that is that, while regrettable, you feel it’s okay for .gov to violate natural rights... wholesale... under exigent circumstances. Not in a targeted or specific way, not through a court order, not transparently, but tyrannically.

I hope that’s not what you meant. Because if it is, you don’t believe in natural rights at all.
 
Picton said:
You also said, “but exigent circumstances.”

The implication I get from that is that, while regrettable, you feel it’s okay for .gov to violate natural rights... wholesale... under exigent circumstances. Not in a targeted or specific way, not through a court order, not transparently, but tyrannically.

I hope that’s not what you meant. Because if it is, you don’t believe in natural rights at all.
Click to expand...
Get whatever you want from it. I said I don't agree with it.
 
kman, I think you need to study some more post-Civil War history. After the war ended, the southern states enacted a set of laws which became known as the "Black Codes". The effect of these laws was to return black Americans to the equivalent of slave status. The 14th was enacted to end these laws and force the South to acknowledge the freed slaves as American citizens. It is not at all poorly written.
 
There are two primary types of jurisdiction:
partial, temporary- ie commit a murder and you are subject to our courts & full, permanent- the above plus additional legal rights (voting, etc)

The first is what illegal immigrants are, and should not get birthright citizenship.

The second is what everybody else is.
 
As much as I want it to happen, you should have seen the possibility to abort 2nd amendment if the 14th is so easy to be tossed out.
 
gunofthrones said:
As much as I want it to happen, you should have seen the possibility to abort 2nd amendment if the 14th is so easy to be tossed out.
Click to expand...

NOT !!!

Think about this for a moment. image.jpeg

The people of the United States, TO OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY, not foreigners, or people who ARE NOT the people of the United States OR THEIR OFFSPRING.

THERE IS NO "loophole" here, it was written with the intent to protect US.....SPECIFICALLY AND EXCLUSIVELY, not to provide a backdoor for continuous illegal infiltration of our nation by foreigners.

Intent of laws is important.....and the intent of the Constitution and the formation of the federal government that it thereby formed was NEVER intended to accomodate or facilitate foreigners in eventually sidestepping all of our laws or their prohibitions or protections.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Import ban extended to ♾️
Replies
17
Views
838
Animal357
A
post trump, covid vax family relations: conservatives vs liberals
3 4 5
Replies
130
Views
3K
67ray
67ray
Biden's LEAD AMMO BAN?
Replies
8
Views
450
MGnoob
MGnoob
If Trump were to be elected, what actions could he take to support the Second Amendment (2A)?
6 7 8
Replies
229
Views
3K
In God We Trust
In God We Trust
Maxine Waters Claims Right-Wing Groups Are "Training Up In The Hills Somewhere" For Civil War If Trump Loses
Replies
1
Views
68
walter62
walter62
Back
Top Bottom