Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

a reply to: Nyiah

Of coarse it can be changed.


That happens when we stop pretending the president is supposed to change policy and vote the people into Congress who represent their constituents.

Hell just voting out incombants is a better strategy than picking a party.

Maybe he can trade part of the First and Second to get his change plus some future change on the Fourth. Politics is about compromise, isn't it.

a reply to: dawnstar
Edit: Noticed I misinterpreted your reply, I agree that the court does not "fix" in the literal context. Sorry for that.

You clearly didn't read the paragraph in the op stating that there is an argument being made that the constitution may have been incorrectly applied for decades.

Only way to challenge the interpretation is to take it to the supreme court in the form of a law or EO challenge since the supreme court cannot rule on something that does not come before them.


I'll say it again, all that libs know to play is checkers.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Maybe he can trade part of the First and Second to get his change plus some future change on the Fourth. Politics is about compromise, isn't it.

Well when my personal president gets elected I hope he restores the tenth and alliavates some of this insanity.

a reply to: Bluntone22

So then you agree that Trump is an idiot for thinking he can change this policy with an EO when the Constitution is very clear on birthright citizenship.

originally posted by: efabian
a reply to: dawnstar

You clearly didn't read the paragraph in the op stating that there is an argument being made that the constitution may have been incorrectly applied for decades.

Only way to challenge the interpretation is to take it to the supreme court in the form of a law or EO challenge since the supreme court cannot rule on something that does not come before them.


I'll say it again, all that you people know to play is checkers.

Like legal precedent?


Uh...? If you study the constitution it's pretty clear we needed population and money we were brand new with very little wealth.


I think reality is our founders expected Congress to work and be able to amend things as needed.

a reply to: Bluntone22

But I dont believe location should determine citizenship.

what should then?? my family has been in this nation since before it was a nation! they fought, and paid with their blood to create this nation, and protect it though these centuries. should I be considered a citizen and be allowed to vote? if I am understanding one of the posters, they seem not to think so. because if the answer is no, then I suggest we deport all those irish americans that came afterwards back to ireland. sure, there are some really good people among them, but then there's a few bad apples in there also.. not naming any names here....

originally posted by: Arnie123
a reply to: Sillyolme

Tell that to the leftist looking to rip the First and Second from us, trust in that everyone wants a crack at admends.

If the leftists went legally and had the political power to update the 2nd amendment then they should do it!

But they don't. They pass restrictive laws attempting to subvert the 2nd Amendment little by little, while at the same time spouting lies that nobody is coming for their guns.

a reply to: jtrenthacker


The Executive Order will be legally challenged and suspended. This will fast track it to the Supreme Court since this aspect of the 14th Amendment has never been legally challenged. Either way we will get some sort of answer or directive from the Court on what needs to be done to settle this.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bluntone22

But I dont believe location should determine citizenship.

what should then?? my family has been in this nation since before it was a nation! they fought, and paid with their blood to create this nation, and protect it though these centuries. should I be considered a citizen and be allowed to vote? if I am understanding one of the posters, they seem not to think so. because if the answer is no, then I suggest we deport all those irish americans that came afterwards back to ireland. sure, there are some really good people among them, but then there's a few bad apples in there also.. not naming any names here....

Your entire post is literally irrelevant to the law. This law has existed for nearly two centuries.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bluntone22

So then you agree that Trump is an idiot for thinking he can change this policy with an EO when the Constitution is very clear on birthright citizenship.

Trump is an idiot.
But we will see how clear the birthright thing is.

a reply to: luthier

but, if you believe in interpreting what the founders meant at the time they wrote it, like many conservatives seem to want to interpret it... it is not being misapplied! if they hadn't granted citizenship to everyone born in the land regardless of weather or not their parents were citizens, there wouldn't have been enough citizens since they were either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: luthier

but, if you believe in interpreting what the founders meant at the time they wrote it, like many conservatives seem to want to interpret it... it is not being misapplied! if they hadn't granted citizenship to everyone born in the land regardless of weather or not their parents were citizens, there wouldn't have been enough citizens since they were either immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants.

The founders didn't write it.

They wrote how to amend the constitution and what the role of Congress and the president are.

originally posted by: dawnstar
but, if you believe in interpreting what the founders meant at the time they wrote it, like many conservatives seem to want to interpret it...

The Founders were all dead by the time the 14th was written in 1868.

a reply to: Bluntone22

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.

That seems pretty clear on the topic. I don't see how anyone could argue there's grey area when it comes to birthright citizenship.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Trump is wrong here.

It states rather simply in the 14th amendment. . .

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.

-Wiki

Sorry Donny, but you'll lose this fight.

Maybe its time to explore the legal process to update the Amendment.

As much as I'd like to see this amendment done away with, the only way is via constitutional convention, and no way in hell I would support letting the children in Congress get their hands on it.

Unfortunately we are doomed to remain the only modern civilized nation with birthrite citizenship.

Uh. No. There are many others. Including our neighbors up north.

Canada is considering changing their laws due to an uptick in 'birth tourism', and I'll wager that within 5 years they change it.

What are these other modern civilized nations that offer it?

a reply to: luthier

what law is that???

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bluntone22

But I dont believe location should determine citizenship.

what should then?? my family has been in this nation since before it was a nation! they fought, and paid with their blood to create this nation, and protect it though these centuries. should I be considered a citizen and be allowed to vote? if I am understanding one of the posters, they seem not to think so. because if the answer is no, then I suggest we deport all those irish americans that came afterwards back to ireland. sure, there are some really good people among them, but then there's a few bad apples in there also.. not naming any names here....

My dads side was here before we were a country to. 1656 in Virginia.

But as to location at birth.
People that are in the country legally are covered by the 14th. I'm not exactly sure if people here illegally are covered.

I agree with this move. And we need to remember, immigration has ALWAYS been restricted to America, it's just when they need labor, the policies are relaxed.

Hell, they did it to the chinese at first! So yes, do that. It's one way to cut those bastards off at the hip, you know the ones that love to bring in cheap labor.

a reply to: luthier
okay, you got a point... so what were the intentions of the ones who did write it you think??