It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

page: 11
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

yes..and every question of citizenship is unique.

The Supreme Court will only determine citizenship based on the facts of a particular case they hear. We'll never have nationality laws that are one size fits all.




posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.


They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.





Except for that tiny issue where the US Supreme Court decides matters of constitutional disagreements, which is what this is. The interpretation of the application of the 14th amendment is not a Congressional issue to fix because nothing is being changed. The interpretation is whats being called into question, with the executive branch saying one thing and members of Congress saying another.

A textbook example of what the Supreme Court is for.



Lol my lord you are clueless.

How does one go about deciding what person is committing fraud?

Also it is literally an amendment and it is clearly not specific and requires a change.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Coming to the US to have a child is not illegal. If you are admitted as a legal alien for a visit or to work and you have your child here your child is a US citizen. Period.
Last week they were criminals and middle eastern terrorists. This week they are diseased ridden refugees who will bring back diseases we have eradicated. Small pox? Really? Leprosy really? And TB? totally curable in this day and age but fear fear fear.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.


They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.





Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?




Yep.

Its very clear you have to change the law in the amendment. For instance marriage was never part of the 14th. So some people don't really have any idea what they are talking about.


Except when that information is being used to demonstrate what perpetrating a fraud on the US government is and noting that its illegal for a US citizen to get married to a foreign national / illegal alien with the intent on avoiding deportation or trying to obtain US citizenship.

Which is exactly what is occurring when an illegal alien illegally comes to the US for the sole purpose of having a child.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.


They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.





Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?




Yep.


If the Supreme Court were to hear a case on citizenship, then they will decide it. They won't throw it to Congress. I don't know how such a thing would even work.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.


They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.





Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?




Yep.

Its very clear you have to change the law in the amendment. For instance marriage was never part of the 14th. So some people don't really have any idea what they are talking about.


Except when that information is being used to demonstrate what perpetrating a fraud on the US government is and noting that its illegal for a US citizen to get married to a foreign national / illegal alien with the intent on avoiding deportation or trying to obtain US citizenship.

Which is exactly what is occurring when an illegal alien illegally comes to the US for the sole purpose of having a child.


Well you are incorrect because the law doesn't say that. There is no way to decide what fraud is until they do so..

Do you actually understand law or do you just look up statutes



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.


They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.





Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?




Yep.


If the Supreme Court were to hear a case on citizenship, then they will decide it. They won't throw it to Congress. I don't know how such a thing would even work.


They do it all the time.

One way is not even taking the case.

But in this case they will just say an EO is unconstitutional and Congress is supposed to write and clarify laws with new laws or amendments.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.


They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.





Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?




Yep.


If the Supreme Court were to hear a case on citizenship, then they will decide it. They won't throw it to Congress. I don't know how such a thing would even work.


They do it all the time.

One way is not even taking the case.



If they don't take the case then the lower court ruling would be affirmed.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Xcathdra

yes..and every question of citizenship is unique.

The Supreme Court will only determine citizenship based on the facts of a particular case they hear. We'll never have nationality laws that are one size fits all.


Well no...

When it comes down to a matter of Constitutional interpretation the Supreme Court can get involved immediately. Secondly the supreme court is not determining citizenship. They would be deciding how that specific section of the 14th amendment wording applies / is to be interpreted.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


This is an interesting article that ruthlessly criticizes the 7th Circuit Court decision, but as of now, illegals do have the right to protect themselves with arms, even if there is a legal loop hole proscribing their ability to legally purchase and own them.

Illegal aliens can now claim Second Amendment rights to own guns in violation of federal law, according to a federal appeals court that completely ignored the primary reason for the right to bear arms: to give Americans citizens the right to remove a tyrannical regime from power. www.breitbart.com...


This does not mean that foreigners should not be able to own firearms, as I explain both in my Nebraska Law Review work and also in another academic publication, “Citizen Gun Rights.” The Second Amendment secures a right to self-defense, and foreigners in this country—especially permanent lawful residents—have the same human concerns regarding their personal safety and the security of their families, homes, and businesses that any other human being might have. This simply means that Congress and state legislatures can decide when and how a foreigner in this country can have firearms, instead of it being a constitutional guarantee to be decreed by the courts.
………………….
The federal government cannot appeal this decision, because in the end it won its case by affirming the district court’s decision not to dismiss the case against Meza-Rodriguez. So unfortunately, unless this criminal asks the Supreme Court to review his case, this case will stay on the books for some time, working mischief to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.


Undocumented citizens are vulnerable to arrest, simply because of their immigration status. Fire arm possession is secondary and after the fact. An individual being in possession of gun is not probably cause to violate their personal rights to see if they might be undocumented, and therefore in violation of gun registration laws.

In summary, undocumeted immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the state in which they reside, and therefore enjoy the rights of residents, but not the special rights of citizens like voting and ovethrowing the US government.




edit on 30-10-2018 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: luthier

Cite your source. I dont want your opinion. I want to see where you got the information from.

His EO doesnt change one word in the 14th amendment. It clarifies the 14th amendment. If the EO is real and not a deterrent to the caravan the scotus will settle the matter.


They will and my prediction is they say it's the job of Congress to clarify policy or fix loopholes.





Who is "they?" The Supreme Court?




Yep.


If the Supreme Court were to hear a case on citizenship, then they will decide it. They won't throw it to Congress. I don't know how such a thing would even work.


They do it all the time.

One way is not even taking the case.



If they don't take the case then the lower court ruling would be affirmed.


Not always. Sometimes they require it to retake the case or clarify the case.

In this case like I said they will have to rule. My guess is there is no authority in EO to interpret the clause in the 14th other than as written.

Particularly when they haven't passed a law to even clarify what fraud would be.

How would you decide who committed fraud and who didnt?



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Xcathdra

yes..and every question of citizenship is unique.

The Supreme Court will only determine citizenship based on the facts of a particular case they hear. We'll never have nationality laws that are one size fits all.


Well no...

When it comes down to a matter of Constitutional interpretation the Supreme Court can get involved immediately. Secondly the supreme court is not determining citizenship. They would be deciding how that specific section of the 14th amendment wording applies / is to be interpreted.



But someone would have to challenge the constitutionality of the proposed order?

ETA: For example, the U.S. would not deny citizenship to a child -- who would otherwise be stateless -- born on U.S. soil to parent(s) in the U.S. illegally. However, they might deny it to a child who would have nationality/citizenship other than U.S. citizenship.

There is no one size fits all.


edit on 10/30/2018 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   

How would you decide who committed fraud and who didnt?


Anyone?


What other way can the 14th be interpreted that only slaves in the us can become citizens or native Americans?

If that's the case its probably time to change the law. It doesn't seem sw of you followed this through.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Lol my lord you are clueless.

Not really but hey, its your problem and not mine.


originally posted by: luthier
How does one go about deciding what person is committing fraud?

and you call me clueless.

deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain,

The illegal alien is purposely violating US law for the sole purpose of having a child in the US to obtain citizenship. So instead of illegals going thru legal channels to lawfully enter with an intent to stay lawfully they are using the anchor baby to bypass those immigration requirements via chain migration.


deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain,
Also it is literally an amendment and it is clearly not specific and requires a change.
Yes its an amendment so very good for knowing what it is. However nothing in the 14th amendment is being changed. A section is being interpreted. For an example of why I am correct and you are not can be found in every single 2nd amendment case ever brought to the Supreme Court. In those cases scotus interpreted the 2nd amendment because prior to that there was confusion in what a well regulated militia was.

The 14th needs to have that section clarified. That requires the Supreme Court and not a constitutional amendment.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: luthier
Lol my lord you are clueless.

Not really but hey, its your problem and not mine.


originally posted by: luthier
How does one go about deciding what person is committing fraud?

and you call me clueless.

deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain,

The illegal alien is purposely violating US law for the sole purpose of having a child in the US to obtain citizenship. So instead of illegals going thru legal channels to lawfully enter with an intent to stay lawfully they are using the anchor baby to bypass those immigration requirements via chain migration.


deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain,
Also it is literally an amendment and it is clearly not specific and requires a change.

Yes its an amendment so very good for knowing what it is. However nothing in the 14th amendment is being changed. A section is being interpreted. For an example of why I am correct and you are not can be found in every single 2nd amendment case ever brought to the Supreme Court. In those cases scotus interpreted the 2nd amendment because prior to that there was confusion in what a well regulated militia was.

The 14th needs to have that section clarified. That requires the Supreme Court and not a constitutional amendment.

Omg you really are clueless.

How do you prove any of that?

And what does that mean in regard to the clause in the 14th?

Nothing at all. Because there is no law about coming having a kid and leaving.

But keep citing Google statutes. That has always helped your arguments before. Like when Mueller was going to be stopped by Judge Ellis.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


These were all laws passed by Congress. Congress passes laws when there is a loophole they fix it.

Congress cannot change the Constitution by passing a law. They have to pass an amendment, and even Congress cannot do that alone:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Source: constitutionus.com...

Congress does not even have to be involved in amending the Constitution. The states do.

The Constitution can be clarified by Supreme Court decisions, however.


EO's are not made to do this. Though its becoming more and more popular. And more supported by both sides.

Correct. Nothing Trump can do will make one iota difference in the Constitution. The Executive Branch has absolutely no power in that respect.

What an EO can do is state the interpretation of the Constitution and establish policy for the Executive Branch based on that interpretation. If the EO is challenged (which this one most certainly will be), it will be up to the Federal courts to decide if the interpretation is correct or not. A question this basic will likely go to the Supreme Court, and there will be determined whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants.

In other words, Trump is not changing the Constitution. All he is doing is bringing his concern to the courts. This is how it is done.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Y'all are distracted over this one, you're missing the behemoth of a Pink Elephant in the room. The problem isn't getting rid of that particular amendment, it's HOW he wants to go about it. With an Executive Order.

I don't think so, Bucko.

There's a specific process for altering the Constitution for a damned reason. Follow it, and it's within the realm of reason to change it. Circumvent that entire process with an EO, and make it so only ONE person can dictate the contents of the Constitution on a whim, and you're about to become Public Enemy #1. This is not a dictatorship, but changing the Constitution whenever you please with no input or procedures in between is a surefire way to get there.


I agree with everything you've said. For him to even consider this route as an option is dangerous and has the potential to be devastating.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier


These were all laws passed by Congress. Congress passes laws when there is a loophole they fix it.

Congress cannot change the Constitution by passing a law. They have to pass an amendment, and even Congress cannot do that alone:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Source: constitutionus.com...

Congress does not even have to be involved in amending the Constitution. The states do.

The Constitution can be clarified by Supreme Court decisions, however.


EO's are not made to do this. Though its becoming more and more popular. And more supported by both sides.

Correct. Nothing Trump can do will make one iota difference in the Constitution. The Executive Branch has absolutely no power in that respect.

What an EO can do is state the interpretation of the Constitution and establish policy for the Executive Branch based on that interpretation. If the EO is challenged (which this one most certainly will be), it will be up to the Federal courts to decide if the interpretation is correct or not. A question this basic will likely go to the Supreme Court, and there will be determined whether or not the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants.

In other words, Trump is not changing the Constitution. All he is doing is bringing his concern to the courts. This is how it is done.

TheRedneck


There is no other way to interpret if you are born here you get citizenship.

There is no way to differentiate in the amendment, and by the way Congress can actually pass laws about immigration which would clarify the 14th.

The people cited Russians and Chinese are not illegals they have guest visas mostly. So again how would you clarify say fraud...

And what other purpose besides slavery and native Americans do you people arguing this will work have?

If that is your argument it surely should be amended.

Anyhow. I would bet anyone here this is completely pointless scapegoating and will go nowhere.



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Just shows how far down the progressive road America has gone that this is even a debate. Everybody says why can't we be like Europe and have socialized healthcare? Then why do you want different citizenship laws than even those liberal havens do?

The 14th Amendment was only to give citizenship to former slaves.
Any other interpretation is wrong.
edit on 30-10-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2018 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Just shows how far down the progressive road America has gone that this is even a debate. Everybody says why can't we be like Europe and have socialized healthcare? Then why do you want different citizenship laws than even those liberal havens do?

The 14th Amendment was only to give citizenship to former slaves.
Any other interpretation is wrong.



Then it needs to be amended. Because it doesn't say that.







 
20
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join