If you support Trump ending Birthright Citizenship via executive order you're a hypocrite.

[BluesLegend]

None of these dumb ass liberals have even read the 14th. They act like the 14th is cast in stone, yet have no problem 'interpreting' the 2nd amendment. Liberals really are the lowest form of life on earth.

They still haven't actually read Obamacare yet...

The left have weaponized stupid.

 

[easyt65]

The left have weaponized stupid.

 

[dblack]

I know. I was just mocking the childish horseshit that passes for politics in Trumplandia.

poorly. we say leftist.

So, what's a "leftist" in your view? Just anyone not onboard with The Great and Powerful Trump?

not at all. funny, I thought you had this all thought out. you don't. so you have no idea what you're even referring to. you just spout cause of trump. That's TDS.

Listen, I have no idea what goes on in the head of a Trumpster. You throw out leftist and libtard at anyone who disagrees with you. But I see no discernible ideology or values in your nonsenses, so I have no idea what you mean by "leftist". In most circles it means people who favor big government, social-engineering, socialism, etc...

What you listed is what I call liberal. leftist in my terms is extreme = wanting no american working, everyone dependent on government, basic control of the masses. authoritarian government.

And you're calling me a leftists? Have you ever read any of my posts???

This is the kind of thing that makes it impossible to take any of your hysteria seriously.

 

[PredFan]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Fuck off. Trump is not doing anything illegal nor is he doing anything unconstitutional. He’s doing something that I voted for him for.

Oh, you voted for Trump to 'change' something; what, your diapers?

 

[Darkwind]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

It is pretty simple really.

He cannot amend the Constitution with an EO/EA.

However, that is the narrative that they are trying to sell.

First off, he isn't trying to do anything. He is looking into how the 14th Amendment is interpreted.
Second, if he concludes that the interpretation means what he thinks and there is a solid legal argument for it, then he'll look into action based upon that interpretation.

So, to summarize. He is looking into making a legal challenge to the way that government has, since the 1960's, interpreted the 14th Amendment.

Things like this happen all the time. It is why we have a court system. I have little doubt that this will end up in the courts if......>IF< ....he decides to go forward.

 

[Brain357]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Well said. I’m in a similar position. I’m open to changing the rules, just not by executive order.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

Well said. I’m in a similar position. I’m open to changing the rules, just not by executive order.

Trump should have started earlier and ran this through Congress. That will be a waste of time now if Democrats take leadership.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dem's are colluding with Mexico and other countries to undermine our elections. In a just world Dem's would be in prison.

The US Govt in the past has actually sent teams down into Mexico to teach would-be illegals how to enroll for benefits just as soon as them illegally make it into the US....

And there are lawyers from the US coaching people on what to say when asked questions about their asylum claim. Instead of getting honest answers, our agencies are getting scripts.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

We have nothing to lose pushing this issue to the SCOTUS. Dem's have everything to lose. Their scheme of canceling out American votes with millions of amnesty illegal votes and their anchor baby votes very likely will be destroyed by the SCOTUS.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Everyone knows it's a ploy to enrage an incredibly stupid part of the electorate. However if he succeeds perhaps the next Dem President could then just abolish the 2nd Amendment with an EO as well!

LOL!

Nobody is abolishing anything. But speaking of the 2nd, a well staffed liberal court could rule that citizens are not protected by the Constitution to have or own guns without changing one thing in the amendment.

 

[sakinago]

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.

Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

No, there is no Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants. There’s a ruling on can children of illegals attend public school. But a scotus ruling addressing the citizenship of children born of illegal immigrants has not happened. The closest thing to that is the Ark ruling, 20 years after the 14th amendment. That was with parents who were legal, but did not go through the naturalization process, went back to China, and wanted to come back after immigration restrictions. That ruling came down to 6-2 that yes, they did qualify as under US jurisdiction, so Wong Kim ark did have birthright citizenship.

And your point on “no-one would be a citizen” is flat out wrong. Most immigration, up until recently, has been legal. How many people were processed at Ellis island in a month? IDK, but it is most certainly a shit ton.

 

[Faun]

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.

Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

Can you please link this supreme court case? I'd like to see where the SC has ruled on this. If this is the case, and the SC did actually already interpret that children born to illegals withing the borders of the United states, then this issue is settled and no need to go further with it.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

We have nothing to lose pushing this issue to the SCOTUS. Dem's have everything to lose. Their scheme of canceling out American votes with millions of amnesty illegal votes and their anchor baby votes very likely will be destroyed by the SCOTUS.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

We have a great shot at getting rid of anchor babies via a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Here is one problem with this whole issue. It doesn't matter if the child is a citizen or not. The issue is, the parents are not citizens, and there is nothing mentioned anywhere that parents gain automatic citizenship should they have a child born on u.s. soil.

Now, if the 14th amendment went through all of the trouble to say that children from foreign countries born on u.s. soil were citizens, then why did it fail to mention what would happen to the parents of a foreign child born in u.s. soil.

Surely, if the writers of the 14th intended that children of illegals were granted automatic citizenship, they would also have addressed what happens to their parents. Seems like that would be a major oversight on nbn behalf of a people smart enough to write a constitution and all of the amendments.

So, there is nothing that says parents become citizens. So you have three choices:

1) if the child has any legal citizens residing in the country, they can go live with them

2) the parents go back home and the child is held in the system until the parents are granted citizenship

3) the child goes back home with the parents and can return when either the parents gain citizenship, or when the child turns 18 and can be on his own in the u.s.

And before you go and say I'm supporting separating a child from his family, it is those of you supporting this that are causing this choice to happen.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

We have nothing to lose pushing this issue to the SCOTUS. Dem's have everything to lose. Their scheme of canceling out American votes with millions of amnesty illegal votes and their anchor baby votes very likely will be destroyed by the SCOTUS.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

And why would the Supreme Court rule babies born of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens when they have said in the past that they are?

 

[Faun]

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.

Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

No, there is no Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship of illegal immigrants. There’s a ruling on can children of illegals attend public school. But a scotus ruling addressing the citizenship of children born of illegal immigrants has not happened. The closest thing to that is the Ark ruling, 20 years after the 14th amendment. That was with parents who were legal, but did not go through the naturalization process, went back to China, and wanted to come back after immigration restrictions. That ruling came down to 6-2 that yes, they did qualify as under US jurisdiction, so Wong Kim ark did have birthright citizenship.

And your point on “no-one would be a citizen” is flat out wrong. Most immigration, up until recently, has been legal. How many people were processed at Ellis island in a month? IDK, but it is most certainly a shit ton.

See the post following yours.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Illegals don't reside in a state, certainly not legally their residence is their home country. This is how we will end anchor babies.

Holyfuckingshit!

The level of ignorance from you rightards is infinite.

Dumbfuck, that’s not speaking to where the parents must be residents. It’s establishing the new born baby, who is here legally, is a dual citizen of both the country and the state.

LOL no dummy the newborn is not a resident and neither is the illegal parent. An anchor baby is born on a plane at 30,000 feet over the US, is that anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. An anchor baby is born 1 mile off shore in US waters, is the anchor baby a US citizen? The SCOTUS will rule no. And we'll keep walking this argument in, an illegal steps 2 feet into the US illegally and has an anchor baby, is the anchor baby a US citizen? Nope. Your worst nightmare is for the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment, no more anchor babies.

LOL

Dumbfuck, the SCOTUS has already ruled. Children born in the jurisdiction of the U.S., even to illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens. And moron, if a baby legally born in the US.S. isn’t a resident, then no baby is, meaning according to your nuttiness, no one is born a U.S. citizen.

Can you please link this supreme court case? I'd like to see where the SC has ruled on this. If this is the case, and the SC did actually already interpret that children born to illegals withing the borders of the United states, then this issue is settled and no need to go further with it.

INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)

Respondents husband and wife, citizens of Mexico, were smuggled illegally into the United States in 1974. Respondent husband was apprehended in 1978, and, although at his request he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation, he refused to leave as promised. Deportation proceedings were then instituted against respondents, who by that time had a child, who, being born in the United States, was a United States citizen.

1) reading through the article, it appears his appeals were denied and he was deported anyway.

2)the supreme court wasn't involved in this case, it was the u.s. court of appeals....unless i read it wrong.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Trump SCOTUS will abolish anchor babies, deal with it snowflake.

LOLOL

Like the Bush SCOTUS abolished ObamaCare?

Or are you saying trump’s justices are “activist judges” who will ignore the wording of the 14th where it clearly states “ALL persons” except for those not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which refers to foreign diplomats.

Justices do their best to interpret the Constitution, no matter who appointed them; and they generally don’t like to overturn prior rulings

We have nothing to lose pushing this issue to the SCOTUS. Dem's have everything to lose. Their scheme of canceling out American votes with millions of amnesty illegal votes and their anchor baby votes very likely will be destroyed by the SCOTUS.

True, you have nothing to lose. Just as many presidents have had EO’s deemed unconstitutional; it’s a mere blip. But you’re not going to gain anything from this either. Anchor babies are not going away without a constitutional amendment.

Oh yes it can. It depends on how the SC would rule it. If they rule the amendment does not protect anchor babies, then the executive order would stand and nothing more could be done about it.

And why would the Supreme Court rule babies born of illegal immigrants are not U.S. citizens when they have said in the past that they are?

Actually they haven't. That article you posted didn't any ruling by the SC, only the court of appeals.

 

[Dana7360]

We have to understand, the president is not trying to repeal an amendment with EO, that is not possible, and few would support it.

He is taking an action on the interpretation of the amendment, which is still sketchy, but it will force the SC to litigate the amendment and make a ruling on the meaning of the amendment.

Here's the full text of that Amendment.

Tell me which part is sketchy. It's very straight forward, exact and clear.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

The part that says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is the part they are going to define. It appears the meaning of that part is a bit muddy.

What's unclear about that?

If undocumented people weren't subject to the jurisdiction of our government and our laws then our immigration laws don't apply to them and they aren't here illegally.

You might want to tell the undocumented people who are here and serving time in our prisons for crimes they committed while here that the government has no jurisdiction on them and they can get out of prison because of it.

If you actually think that any judge on any one of our courts including our right wing controlled Supreme Court is going to buy into that you seriously need to rethink things.

 

[tinydancer]

Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.

If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.

The EO is designed to force lawsuits against it and have the legal battle rage on and drive the issue to the Supreme Court and force the SCOTUS to issue a ruling.

Here's a link Note the author of the piece is Jonathan Turley. A Democrat.

Trump plan for birthright citizenship executive order will force courts to act. That's good.

Trump plan for birthright citizenship executive order will force courts to act. That's good.