It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: proximo
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
I'm sorry but the biggest problems in America are not related to race, as Trump is trying to hint.
After the shooting in
PortlandPittsburg, 70,000 people have put their signatures to a petition to keep Trump away. The predominantly Jewish signatories are concerned that Trump represents right-wing hate speech, which was a motivator for the shooter and a reminder of the attitudes of Nazism which enacted the Holocaust.
Your right - that is a big problem.
70,000 people are apparently so ignorant or stupid they actually believe Trump supports Nazism.
The fact that many idiots are ready to sign the petition is very dangerous. To be that devoid of reality quite possibly makes them very dangerous to society.
originally posted by: SammyB0476
Did someone say that illegals' anchor babies are the same as the pilgrims? Wasn't the pilgrims' arrival over 250 year prior to the ratification of the 14th amendment?
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump offered a dramatic, if legally dubious, promise in a new interview to unilaterally end birthright citizenship, ratcheting up his hardline immigration rhetoric with a week to go before critical midterm elections.
Trump's vow to end the right to citizenship for the children of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil came in an interview with Axios released Tuesday. Such a step would be regarded as an affront to the US Constitution, which was amended 150 years ago to include the words: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Trump did not say when he would sign the order, and some of his past promises to use executive action have gone unfulfilled. But whether the President follows through on his threat or not, the issue joins a string of actions intended to thrust the matter of immigration into the front of voters' minds as they head to polls next week.
So, now Trumps attempting to garner up support from his base in the midterm elections by claiming his going to violate the US constitution with an executive order.
Like seriously, are you guys that far gone that you would let a threat like this from Trump just pass, without taking issue?
His literally bragging about having the power to change the constitution at will. Obviously, as usual with Trump, its probably just a bunch of hot air and empty rhetoric... But still, he's made a claim that he has the power to single handedly rewrite the constitution.
How can even the most hardcore supporters of Trump just let this slide?
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Everyone within US borders are subject to the jurisdiction/authority of the US Government, except those with (diplomatic) immunity.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut
What immigration law were they breaking?
Judge Napolitano Teaches Basic Civics to Desperate ‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts
“Look, the president can’t change the plain meaning of the Constitution with the stroke of a pen,” Napolitano said. Trump’s intentions were revealed in a clip from the new Axios on HBO released this week. In it, he said he plans to sign an order that will terminate the legal right of babies born on U.S. soil to have citizenship if the parent is an undocumented immigrant or non-citizen. “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States... with all of those benefits,” Trump said, inaccurately. “And it has to end.” (That claim was quickly deemed false after the Axios clip posted—birthright citizenship exists in dozens of other countries, including Canada and Mexico.) Napolitano explained that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution “says that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the state in which they live.”
Says you. If the US law says they can't be here, and they are here, then are they really subject to the US government?