Trump thinks he can change the Constitution via EO

[justinacolmena]

The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

The Pubs and the Dems just hit the tennis ball back and forth across the net and elbow us out of the way. They stole our birth certificates and our guns, and now they are running us off to the concentration camps.

Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer? Bloody German white nationalists, and if they have a drop or two of Jewish blood, they play it to the hilt to stab other Jews in the back and demand universal circumcision. Our dentists don't have enough teeth in their mouths to pay for those of ours they pulled.

 

[iceberg]

and that mentality is what built this shitpile of a gov we're in today. wrong is wrong and i don't care which side does it. if we are having such a problem working together that we have to take short cuts to get what OUR SIDE wants then that should be a HUGE FRIGGIN FLAG of what we need to fix first.

Again, that all sounds noble, it makes me warm and fuzzy inside...but FUCK warm and fuzzy...it’s time to do the right thing for the right people by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!

so you seem to be saying it's ok to do bullshit things as long as you get what you want.

gee. how did this bucket of shit become an ocean again???

If good Americans will clearly be the sole beneficiary then FUCK YES....By any means necessary!

gee. and *the other side* feels the same way.

how again do we resolve this conflict?

NEGATIVE
The other side thinks our Constitution was written for Mexico. This isn’t complicated.

please show me a link that says they think it was written for mexico.

 

[martybegan]

it has been partially, but the case considered legal visitors to the US.

Not really. Unted States vs Wong Kim Ark was a case specific to a legal immigrant who was not eligible for citizenship.

It had nothing to do with birthright citizenship of children of illegal immigrants. Nothing at all.

Um... that's what I said.

 

[well named]

I've often wondered why we didn't do this.

Remember that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. The nation was still very small, about 38 million in 1870. When we say that the US is a "nation of immigrants" it's not just aspirational, it's an historical truth. Throughout the 17th and most of the 18th centuries we needed immigrants to come here to grow the population. It's very much a part of the belief in manifest destiny that underlies the expansion of the American territories. Hence open immigration was encouraged. Birth-right citizenship was a good way to incentivize that immigration. Of course, they only really wanted European immigrants, so... that part has perhaps not changed so much.

It wasn't really until ~20 years after the 14th amendment that you start to see more anti-immigrant sentiment, i.e. in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, but there again it's always been that only certain groups of immigrants were deemed undesirable.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, they cannot be arrested if they commit a crime?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They have already committed a crime by entering and/or remaining in the country illegally.

While that is true, it did not answer the question.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[martybegan]

Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.

Here is the root problem; your inability to accept facts.

The fact is your side lost, Trump is POTUS, ouch!

Hillary got 3M more votes than the blob

And a team can get more hits than the other and still lose a baseball game.

Runs matter in baseball, EV's (States) matter in Presidential Elections.

True.

It’s also true that HRC got 3M more votes than the blob. Why this triggers you guys is hilarious.

As for the political calculation of overturning the Constitution via EO, the margin was razor thin to start with. Thinking this will increase the numbers of votes you’ll get is dumb; thinking this will bind your margin is equally daft

What makes us respond is when your side states it as if it means something. It's just as stupid as saying Wyoming's Senator represents less people than NY's Senator and both have the same vote.

It's how the system was designed.

You don't think it will do anything, but Trump isn't trying to rally people like you.

 

[candycorn]

Lib please Trump won the popular vote by 1 million votes in 49 of the 50 states, 30 states out right, and over 300 EC votes, Trump destroyed you.

Here is the root problem; your inability to accept facts.

The fact is your side lost, Trump is POTUS, ouch!

Hillary got 3M more votes than the blob

what the fuck is up with all the pyrrhic victories? never has this mattered and it doesn't matter here. it just seems to be a way to keep warm in your loss.

Only because of Commiefornia. Without it, Trump wins by a million.

Lame

 

[Coyote]

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
If both of the parents are breaking our immigration laws then their offspring should not be allowed birthright citizenship.
View attachment 225697

Children dont have a choice. That if the people want to change the Constitution, there is a process and that process is not an EO.

 

[MACAULAY]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

I hope not.

The idea that a president, any president can overturn a constitutional amendment by EO should scare the shit out of us.

____

Issue Executive Order based on his interpretation of the Constitution---which has strong support in the rational legal community. As usual, the Courts will decide if his construction is correct. Its what they are there for.

Just like Obama did with his immigration orders (Daca)---except Obama went ahead and issued them after openly admitting they were unconstitutional. ("I have a pen and a phone.")

Hypocrisy. Its what Democrat/Marxist do.

 

[candycorn]

Here is the root problem; your inability to accept facts.

The fact is your side lost, Trump is POTUS, ouch!

Hillary got 3M more votes than the blob

And a team can get more hits than the other and still lose a baseball game.

Runs matter in baseball, EV's (States) matter in Presidential Elections.

True.

It’s also true that HRC got 3M more votes than the blob. Why this triggers you guys is hilarious.

As for the political calculation of overturning the Constitution via EO, the margin was razor thin to start with. Thinking this will increase the numbers of votes you’ll get is dumb; thinking this will bind your margin is equally daft

What makes us respond is when your side states it as if it means something. It's just as stupid as saying Wyoming's Senator represents less people than NY's Senator and both have the same vote.

It's how the system was designed.

You don't think it will do anything, but Trump isn't trying to rally people like you.

No...it’s reality and you’ve been programmed that you need not accept reality.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Um... that's what I said.

No, you said partially. Ha.

Anyway, We're on the same side.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Here is the root problem; your inability to accept facts.

The fact is your side lost, Trump is POTUS, ouch!

Hillary got 3M more votes than the blob

what the fuck is up with all the pyrrhic victories? never has this mattered and it doesn't matter here. it just seems to be a way to keep warm in your loss.

Only because of Commiefornia. Without it, Trump wins by a million.

Lame

What is lame is that your Leftist mind cannot understand how the electoral college works. Popular vote means nothing. Just like yards in a football game. Points matter not yards.

 

[pismoe]

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

No upside for Trump I meant

Sure there is, he's getting his base fired up right before the mid terms on his signature issue, whether he follows through on this EO or not, the timing is purely political.

I thought it was kind of funny that during the interview he played coy about being surprised that Axios knew about the EO, I'd be willing to bet he's the one that ordered it to be leaked.

I disagree with the calculus. Tinkering with the Constitution is disastrous. The hardcore Trump supporters may be on board...suburban soccer moms? No.

There is no tinkering. Every case the SCOTUS takes is to provide clarification of our laws under the Constitution.

Do you have a problem with that?

Mark

None at all. He should try to overturn a Constitutional amendment with an EO. Lol

-------------------------------------- TRUMPS Voters love it , the EO , good or bad shows that TRUMPS Heart is in the right place Candy .

 

[toomuchtime_]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

It's about time. US law is intended to serve the interests of US citizens and allowing the child of illegals to become a US citizen simply because he or she is born here serves no interests of US citizens.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
If both of the parents are breaking our immigration laws then their offspring should not be allowed birthright citizenship.
View attachment 225697

Children dont have a choice. That if the people want to change the Constitution, there is a process and that process is not an EO.

First Trump's EO will be tested by the Supreme Court, and then the congress can work on a constitutional amendment.

 

[NightFox]

Yes there is an upside, if SCOTUS rules in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegals/temporary legal status (which I suspect it would) then Stare Decisis will be on the side of those children and they have much less to worry about when it comes to having their citizenship yanked by some future Executive and/or Congress.

No upside for Trump I meant

Sure there is, he's getting his base fired up right before the mid terms on his signature issue, whether he follows through on this EO or not, the timing is purely political.

I thought it was kind of funny that during the interview he played coy about being surprised that Axios knew about the EO, I'd be willing to bet he's the one that ordered it to be leaked.

I disagree with the calculus. Tinkering with the Constitution is disastrous. The hardcore Trump supporters may be on board...suburban soccer moms? No.

Of course you do but then again you probably disagreed with the same "calculus" when Trump was doing the same "fire up the base on immigration" dance during the 2016 campaign, right? Seems to have worked for him then and I suspect the Presidents political advisors are in a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode.

.. and there is no "Tinkering with the Constitution" going on, if he does actually do this EO (big IF) then it's just going to force SCOTUS to provide an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which is something that is well within the purview of SCOTUS according to the current standards of judicial review, or do you not agree with SCOTUS having the authority to do judicial review?

He lost the PV and won the EC by 80,000 votes in 3 states.

Yeah, yeah, I know, he lost at Checkers, while winning the Chess game, all the useful idiots from Crime Family-D never stop whining about it.

The fact remains that he won the Presidency and Crime Family-R won the House based in part on immigration "red meat" rhetoric, which means it worked, so anybody that's surprised he's trying it again isn't paying attention to reality.

I hope they do try to overturn the Constitution by EO. What’s next? No more 1st Amendment?

LOL, Nobody is trying to "overturn the Constitution by EO", if it's issued all it will do is force the Judicial Branch to rule on the question, Trump and his gang of political buzzards know that.

 

[Preacher]

Source: CNBC.COM original story on Axios
Trump wants to sign an order to end birthright citizenship, setting up a constitutional battle

"President Donald Trump is planning to terminate birthright citizenship, according to a report by Axios, potentially setting up another stand-off between the U.S. president and the courts.

Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said Monday, according to Axios which used the exclusive interview to promote a new documentary series called "Axios on HBO."

"This would be the most dramatic move yet in Trump's hardline immigration campaign, this time targeting 'anchor babies' and 'chain migration'," Axios said in its report.


Trump's comments come as he continues to push a hard anti-immigration line ahead of the midterms this month, and many experts will highlight that it's not within the president's power to change birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump reportedly said, declaring he can do it by using an executive order.

Trump said he had run the idea of ending birthright citizenship by his counsel and plans to proceed, despite likely controversy. However, during the same interview Trump expressed surprise that Axios knew about his secret plan: "I didn't think anybody knew that but me. I thought I was the only one," he said."

Let the fun, games and gnashing of teeth begin.

This should be an interesting court battle if President Twitter follows through with the Executive Order since the courts have never ruled on the question of whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants or foreigners with temporary legal status.

Personally I don't think he's going to win this battle but I guess we'll see.

"May you live in interesting times" -- Chinese Curse

Why do you think he has waited until he placed TWO conservative judges on the SC? 1 replaced a conservative and another replaced a leftist....hopefully by time this comes up before the SC Ginsburg will be dead and we will have a concrete conservative majority to make this clear.

 

[bendog]

So, they cannot be arrested if they commit a crime?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

They have already committed a crime by entering and/or remaining in the country illegally.

While that is true, it did not answer the question.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

One can break a law and still submit to the jurisdiction and "pledge" allegiance to the govt. That's the whole basis for civil disobedience. You contend a law is unfair, but still accept the punishment for breaking it.

The question literally is whether breaking the law to enter the US permanently deprives an illegal alien from choosing to stop allegiance to his home country and pledge it to the US. I think that question is not answered.

 

[martybegan]

The fact is your side lost, Trump is POTUS, ouch!

Hillary got 3M more votes than the blob

And a team can get more hits than the other and still lose a baseball game.

Runs matter in baseball, EV's (States) matter in Presidential Elections.

True.

It’s also true that HRC got 3M more votes than the blob. Why this triggers you guys is hilarious.

As for the political calculation of overturning the Constitution via EO, the margin was razor thin to start with. Thinking this will increase the numbers of votes you’ll get is dumb; thinking this will bind your margin is equally daft

What makes us respond is when your side states it as if it means something. It's just as stupid as saying Wyoming's Senator represents less people than NY's Senator and both have the same vote.

It's how the system was designed.

You don't think it will do anything, but Trump isn't trying to rally people like you.

No...it’s reality and you’ve been programmed that you need not accept reality.

What a useless and undefendable statement.

Your own bias blinds you to anything else but "trump sucks, fuh fuh fuh, trump supporters suck, fuh fuh fuh"