birth tourism and anchor babies
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
Maybe this will spark a supreme court challenge of the interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Not sure how I feel about this one, and yes I know all the arguments re: why this is supposedly good.
Maybe this will spark a supreme court challenge of the interpretation of the 14th amendment.
headed there like a freight train
Amendment was originally for freed slaves after the War Between The States. Those brought here without being born here and those born here not considered citizens would become citizens....as it should have been.
Was either 64 or 65 a judge interpreted that as to also include children of illegals.
Good for Trump, this will absolutely peel off a huge number of illegals and might even save some smaller town hospitals also.
Also a nice move 7 days before mid-terms.
Was either 64 or 65 a judge interpreted that as to also include children of illegals.
Good for Trump, this will absolutely peel off a huge number of illegals and might even save some smaller town hospitals also.
Also a nice move 7 days before mid-terms.
While the correctness of the decision is open to debate it should be of concern to all of us that one man has been granted authority to issue such an order unilaterally. We are willingly giving too much power for one person to control our lives and actions. That is not something a society of free people should embrace.
He hasn't been given unilateral power. That's just crazy talk.
It'll be challenged and go to the courts to rule. Nothing about that process is unilateral or a singular power.
That dog don't hunt.
It'll be challenged and go to the courts to rule. Nothing about that process is unilateral or a singular power.
That dog don't hunt.
You may be right. I'm just going off the apparent glee some of our posters are expressing that immigrants will no longer be able to game the system. Obviously Mr. Trump believes he has such authority. Why else would he issue the order? Question for you: let's suppose the EO goes through the courts and is decreed as legitimate, the President can unilaterally decide who can be granted citizenship. Would that cause you any concern?
If it goes through the courts then it is not unilaterally implemented. Unilateral implementation is Obama's pen and phone with no judicial review.
Nope. Because he can't. He only has that power if the constitution grants it to him or if the legislature legislates their authority to him. So there's nothing unilateral about it in the least.
And if he does; then we always have the recourse to pass an amendment to correct that power if we choose. So no. It isn't a problem to anyone who realized the checks and balances of the constitution are still in place.
if only one man had been granted such power we could have such a discussion outside the realm of whatifland
I see a handful of strong "Constitutionalists" ITT, who seem amenable to changing the Constitution. I guess it just depends on which amendment we are talking about.
I guess we have a different understanding of what unilateral means. If the Supreme Court decrees that it is constitutional for the President to issue an EO granting or refusing citizenship based on any criteria he chooses, that, to me, would be granting unilateral power to the presidency, essentially making him a dictator in that regard. And it is not something I believe should be accepted by a free people.
(Note: I'm not arguing the correctness of the EO. I'm arguing the correctness of giving any person such power.)
"glee" If you say so. You cool with immigrants gaming the system?
An EO like this is foolish and plain wrong. The 14th amendments says anyone born here is a citizen. Period.
I don't think it's right to have people coming to the US for the sole purpose of having children to give them the opportunity to be citizens, but that's the law.
If he doesn't like it, then pass a new amendment to abolish the 14th.
I don't think it's right to have people coming to the US for the sole purpose of having children to give them the opportunity to be citizens, but that's the law.
If he doesn't like it, then pass a new amendment to abolish the 14th.
Exactly. He can't overturn an Amendment with an EO anyway. It is all just fluff.
It is only unilateral if it is without recourse. We the people have adopted the constitution. If that is a power granted by the constitution to the executive branch only then we elect executives who'll do with that power as we the people choose.
Nothing is unilateral.
LOL. So we want to see this EO challenged in the courts in order to have it validated or not exactly makes us strong constutionalists ITT.
And exactly how do the word 'and under the jurisdiction thereof' impact your reading of the 14th amendment.
Also there is a path in this where the states regain the power to determine citizenship. Guess what, that would allow California to simply declare that all their 'illegals' are now 'legal' citizens. And it would be constitutional.
So those on the right might be cautious and those on the left be a bit more open to this interpretation of the 14th amendment.
In my opinion, the phrase of "and under the jurisdiction thereof' applies to Puerto Rico, US Samoa and other US protectorates. Territories under the "jurisdiction" of the US.
I think it could also be used to deny citizenship to those "vacation" babies that are born here and return to their home countries with their parents only to try to return when of age to claim citizenship. That would be a SCOTUS decision on that interpretation.
If you look at the debate in congress at the time, when drafting the amendment, it could be interpreted that they never intended this amendment to mean children of foreigners. Native Americans were not given citizenship under this amendment because congress considered the tribes foreign entities and that people born in this environment were subject to the laws of the tribe.
The supreme court has ruled that children of legal aliens are citizens if they're born in the US I believe.
So, now it is OK to try to determine "intent" and "vision for the future" when considering the 14th Amendment. At the same time, we can not take those things into consideration when interpreting the 2nd Amendment.
I don't know which side of the argument you fall on, and I am mostly just playing devils advocate. But, there seem to be some hypocrites showing up ITT.
You're talking yourself in a circle and adding words to confuse yourself. "Vision for the future" doesn't appear anywhere in this thread except your post.
He was referencing the "intent" of the 14th based on the debates at the time of the 14th. It's the exact same as using the debates at the time of the 2nd to look at the "intent" of the 2nd. That's way far from hypocrisy. Maybe consistency is the word you were looking for?
Your side wanted to take away Trump's clearly legal authority to regulate immigration based solely on what the left said was his discriminatory language in a campaign. "Intent" seemed to be all you guys needed to run to the courts.
You lefties have no moral authority on trying to shame people for gaming the system. The Obama administration issued executive orders that President Obama clearly did not have the authority to issue and they totally ignored laws they didn't like even though all of them took an oath to uphold all laws.
Trump can issue an order and the injunction will be in place by some liberal judge in Hawaii before the ink drys. This needs to be settled with legislation. The Democrats will never allow that so the taxpaying citizens will continue to get f'd probably for at least our lifetimes.
I think you misunderstand. I wasn't referring solely to this thread. I was referring to arguments, from other posters ITT, made in past threads, in reference to the 2nd Amendment. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
Good, this was originally a law (introduced by republicans, much to the dismay of the racist democrats of the time) that was specifically for expediting the citizenship claims of freed slaves.
It was never meant to be a backdoor citizenship option for illegal aliens. It'll be spun by morons to be racist (obviously), but it's just another thing we've been stuck with that nobody had the weaponized autism to ask "wtf is this bullshit?" Trump is that guy.
It's about slave votes for wannabe socialists and slave labor for corporatists.
Puerto Rico didn't become a protectorate until 1898 as did Guam. Samoa became a protectorate in 1899. The 14th was written way before that and was not meant to be bastardized into the farce it is today as it applies today.
An illegal is subject to the "jurisdiction" of his country of birth, not US law. Not even buying the vacation babies too much grey area there and as soon as you open the door a 1mm then activist judges will keep at it until its been taken off its hinges.
Singapore has strict immigration laws and in fact all domestic helper from outside Singapore are given pregnancy tests every 6 months for the above reason. If they are found to be pregnant they are sent back home. The Singaporean person who hired them and put up the bond to do so losses that bond money.
Last edited:
speaking of singapore
i took my youngest and my nephew to arlington cemetery this summer
i took a picture of all the GD gum on the sidewalks as you entered thru security
and showed the boys how disprespectful people are of this hallowed ground.
As stated, it is my opinion on who the 14th amendment is referring to today. Back then it would have been applied to territories at the time, such as Colorado and Wyoming and such.
Pro 2nd people on here discuss the 2nd from the perspective of the debates that it was written from. The poster you quoted was discussing the 14th from the perspective of the debates it was written from. Where exactly is the hypocrisy?
