Paul Ryan shoots down Trump's birthright citizenship plans

[mystery-ak]

 By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 30, 2018

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan poured cold water Tuesday on President Trump’s plan to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, saying “you obviously cannot do that.”

Mr. Ryan said it is hypocritical for a Republican president to do what the GOP complained about under President Obama in using executive powers to try to rewrite immigration law.

But he also went further and said he sees the constitutional question as settled, guaranteeing citizenship to most people born on U.S. soil even if to illegal immigrant parents.

more
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/30/paul-ryan-shoots-down-trumps-birthright-citizenshi/

[Frank Cannon]

This fag Paul Ryan can blow it out his ass......if there is room for that.

[skeeter]

I guess we should be thankful that this WORTHLESS DUD is leaving congress.

[libertybele]

HE is exactly why the House is having problems going into the mid terms.  Can't wait till we can say good riddance to this royal jack azz!   

[Emjay]

HE is exactly why the House is having problems going into the mid terms.  Can't wait till we can say good riddance to this royal jack azz!   

I can't figure out why Ryan felt it necessary to make this comment.

[INVAR]

I can't figure out why Ryan felt it necessary to make this comment.

Because the Republicans have less than Zero intention to allow anyone to get rid of anchor baby citizenship, and because ruling by E.O. is not how you change a Constitutional Amendment that is being wrongly interpreted by current courts and society.

[Dexter]

As if the Republicans aren't going to fight with all means at their disposal. You know damn well the Democrats aren't worried about being hypocrites. 

[Dexter]

Because the Republicans have less than Zero intention to allow anyone to get rid of anchor baby citizenship, and because ruling by E.O. is not how you change a Constitutional Amendment that is being wrongly interpreted by current courts and society.

Yeah, the EO would be immediately undone by the next left president.

[Jazzhead]

Mr. Ryan said it is hypocritical for a Republican president to do what the GOP complained about under President Obama in using executive powers to try to rewrite immigration law.

I agree with that, and would prefer that Congress act.  But the text of the 14th amendment clearly provides for a limitation, and given reality that it would appear to be lawful for either Congress or the President to enact its interpretation of which children are "born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and which are not,  with the SCOTUS acting as the ultimate arbiter. 

Will a Constitutional amendment be necessary, as Ryan implies?  Not necessarily - just as the Court was able, ultimately, to find an individual RKBA in the Second Amendment by means of interpreting the meaning and import of the predicate clause,  so could the Court (or the President, or Congress with the ultimate imprimatur of the Court)  so interpret the 14th Amendment.   

[Machiavelli]

Amendment XIV, 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."

The Constitution cannot be amended by a Presidential Executive Order. Ryan is correct

[skeeter]

Amendment XIV, 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."

The Constitution cannot be amended by a Presidential Executive Order. Ryan is correct

Ryan probably is. Empty suits such as himself would've had to/will have to deal with the matter Constitutionally. But since Ryan sat on his ass for years (his tenure amounted to virtually nothing) Trump is bringing the issue front and center by the only means available.

[XenaLee]

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, October 30, 2018

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan poured cold water Tuesday on President Trump’s plan to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, saying “you obviously cannot do that.”

Mr. Ryan said it is hypocritical for a Republican president to do what the GOP complained about under President Obama in using executive powers to try to rewrite immigration law.

But he also went further and said he sees the constitutional question as settled, guaranteeing citizenship to most people born on U.S. soil even if to illegal immigrant parents.

more
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/30/paul-ryan-shoots-down-trumps-birthright-citizenshi/

There's a big/huge difference between Obama's EOs (trying to destroy America) and Trump's EO re: immigration (trying to SAVE America).   That Ryan apparently is unable to discern the vast difference strikes me as rather hypocritical, if not completely asinine.   Bub bye, Paul.  Don't let that DC door hit ya......(you know the rest).

[libertybele]

Because the Republicans have less than Zero intention to allow anyone to get rid of anchor baby citizenship, and because ruling by E.O. is not how you change a Constitutional Amendment that is being wrongly interpreted by current courts and society.

Trump doesn't have the authority to change a Constitutional amendment.

He made the comment because his political career is over and he's waving the middle finger to all those who were foolish enough to continue to keep voting for him.

[Machiavelli]

I agree with that, and would prefer that Congress act.  But the text of the 14th amendment clearly provides for a limitation, and given reality that it would appear to be lawful for either Congress or the President to enact its interpretation of which children are "born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and which are not,  with the SCOTUS acting as the ultimate arbiter.

@Jazzhead Isn't anyone born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

[Sanguine]

@Jazzhead Isn't anyone born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

The political jurisdiction or the territorial jurisdiction?

[skeeter]

@Jazzhead Isn't anyone born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

If a vacationer encounters trouble in America their embassy acts as their representative.

An illegal alien isn't even here, officially.

[massadvj]

"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."

That does not seem very ambiguous to me.  If the POTUS can get under this 14th constitutional amendment with an EO what is to keep some future president from undoing the 2nd amendment?

[Jazzhead]

Amendment XIV, 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."

The Constitution cannot be amended by a Presidential Executive Order. Ryan is correct

The Constitution cannot be amended by a Presidential Executive Order.  But neither can it be amended by a mere act of Congress.

But amendment isn't the issue.   The reasonable interpretation and construction of its plain language is.   I don't see why it cannot be reasonably interpreted and construed by means of a executive order.   I agree with Ryan that the Congress should not be ceding its responsibilities to the President - we all know how much we complained about Obama and his EOs.   But the point is to construe "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"  and force the SCOTUS to ultimately decide whether that construction is correct.   Just as the SCOTUS did when it construed the Second Amendment to include an individual RKBA.   There was no amendment of the 2A - just construction. 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead Isn't anyone born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

What in your view is the meaning of the limitation?   In construing a Constitutional provision, one should try to give all of its language meaning.   (For years, the 2A's predicate clause vexed Constitutional scholars.)    If anyone born here is a citizen, there would be no need for the limitation "born . . . subject to the jurisdiction of the United States".    So what in your mind is an example of an individual born here who wouldn't be a citizen by reason of the limitation?   

[Jazzhead]

"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."

That does not seem very ambiguous to me.  If the POTUS can get under this 14th constitutional amendment with an EO what is to keep some future president from undoing the 2nd amendment?

Nothing except the fact that the 2A's individual right has been explicitly confirmed by the SCOTUS.    I agree with you that the 2A's individual right is on shaky ground - a different SCOTUS majority,  unbound by stare decisis, could easily take the right away by pointing to the predicate clause.

[Machiavelli]

The Constitution cannot be amended by a Presidential Executive Order.  But neither can it be amended by a mere act of Congress.

@Jazzhead Yeah. I remember when Congress gave the President line item veto power and SCOTUS threw it out.

[libertybele]

This article says things a little out of context.  Ryan is correct that the President CANNOT issue an executive order and amend the Constitution.  Definitely, not a fan of Ryan but the statement he made is correct:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/paul-ryan-you-cannot-end-birthright-citizenship-with-an-executive-order-2018-10-30

Trump may have the best intentions and want to end birthright citizenship, but he doesn't have the authority to do so.  Only Congress can change a constitutional amendment....or calling a Convention of States.   Unfortunately, IMHO now is not the time to call for a Convention of States ... not when the GOP majority is up in the air.

[truth_seeker]

Whien the Constitution was amended to change former slaves, into citizens I do NOT believe it was contemplated that eventually hordes would enter across our borders, walking, driving and recently by flying.

*There are hotels, apartments in SoCal that service entries from Asia, coming for the explicit purpose of housing pregant women, until the child (American citizen) is born.


By what ever method, kit DOES need a solution.

[dfwgator]

So when is this guy going to finally leave and get that lobbying gig?

[sneakypete]

I can't figure out why Ryan felt it necessary to make this comment.

@Emjay

I can. He is trolling for a desk and a fat multi-year contract  at CBS,ABC,or NBC.

Think "Joe Scarborough".

Nothing new about this. Whores have been doing this since the dawn of time.