Paul Ryan shoots down Trump's birthright citizenship plans

[Sanguine]

Good for Ryan.  Who wants to be House minority leader during Armageddon?  Thanx for the tax cut Paul.

And, a cheery good morning to you too, @Once-Ler.  The sun is shining, it's cool, and life is good.   Have a nice day.   

[Jazzhead]

Good for Ryan.  Who wants to be House minority leader during Armageddon?  Thanx for the tax cut Paul.

The WSJ says this morning that consumer confidence is at an 18-year high!   More jobs are being created than there are willing citizens to fill them.   And wage growth - finally! - has arrived.   

So, yes,  thanks for the tax cut, Paul.   Too bad the GOP has been unable to make hay over this good news because of the noise from Hurricane Donald.   

[skeeter]

Good for Ryan.  Who wants to be House minority leader during Armageddon?  Thanx for the tax cut Paul.

He apparently didn't want to be majority leader, either.

[TomSea]

At least, the issue is on the table. It's a dumb law to be in affect.  It's been mentioned before, maybe now, something can be done about it.

[truth_seeker]

Recent GOP Speakers:

"Denny" Hastert, convicted pervert.

John Boehner, now "monetizing" his Speaker tenure, by lobbying for the huge new Marijuana Industry.

So Ryan doesn't have too high of a bar to get over.

[edpc]

Good for Ryan.  Who wants to be House minority leader during Armageddon?  Thanx for the tax cut Paul.

Save your thanks (especially if you’re a business owner) until December, when we see what necessary technical corrections are made.  They rushed it through and the errors will require Dem cooperation to fix them.  That’s going to be interesting.


https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/gops-tax-reform-law-is-full-of-typos-errors-experts/

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/390747-retailers-restaurants-press-congress-for-fixes-to-gop-tax-law

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/396780-ryan-expects-bill-on-tax-fixes-to-come-out-at-the-end-of-the-year

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't give a crap what this self-selected lame duck thinks.  After 1/1, I can add his opinion to a buck and buy a cup of coffee.

[RoosGirl]

Save your thanks (especially if you’re a business owner) until December, when we see what necessary technical corrections are made.  They rushed it through and the errors will require Dem cooperation to fix them.  That’s going to be interesting.


https://nypost.com/2018/02/24/gops-tax-reform-law-is-full-of-typos-errors-experts/

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/390747-retailers-restaurants-press-congress-for-fixes-to-gop-tax-law

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/396780-ryan-expects-bill-on-tax-fixes-to-come-out-at-the-end-of-the-year

Hey, maybe this was what Trump was talking about when he said there would be more tax cuts in the coming weeks. 

[skeeter]

Hey, maybe this was what Trump was talking about when he said there would be more tax cuts in the coming weeks.

Now I'm confused - whom do we thank for the tax cut?

[Cyber Liberty]

Now I'm confused - whom do we thank for the tax cut?

Ourselves, for helping to keep the Hildabest from being Preezy of the United Steezy.

[skeeter]

Ourselves, for helping to keep the Hildabest from being Preezy of the United Steezy.

That will not be a problem.

[GrouchoTex]

Most of you know that I am no Trump cheerleader, nor am I an NT (since Nov 2016, anyway), but this is a good move, and he wins politically, no matter the outcome.

(1) Issues the EO, where the Supreme court has to look at the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for the first time since 1898, and may agree that this does not aplly to people who enter here illegally.

(2) Issues the EO, SCOTUS may say Trump cannot do this, not rule other than that, but may say congress can by statute, which still gives Trump a political victory, and moves the ball into Congress's court.

(3) Decides not to issue the EO, but uses the bully pulpit to rally people to contact members of congress to take action, again another political victory.

(4) SCOTUS may rule that this needs an amendment to over turn, which would be difficult, if not impossible to get, but cost Trump no political Capital for trying.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Recent GOP Speakers:

"Denny" Hastert, convicted pervert.

John Boehner, now "monetizing" his Speaker tenure, by lobbying for the huge new Marijuana Industry.

So Ryan doesn't have too high of a bar to get over.

throw in Democrat Pelosi and the bar can be crossed by a snake

[Machiavelli]

Most of you know that I am no Trump cheerleader, nor am I an NT (since Nov 2016, anyway), but this is a good move, and he wins politically, no matter the outcome.

(1) Issues the EO, where the Supreme court has to look at the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for the first time since 1898, and may agree that this does not aplly to people who enter here illegally.

(2) Issues the EO, SCOTUS may say Trump cannot do this, not rule other than that, but may say congress can by statute, which still gives Trump a political victory, and moves the ball into Congress's court.

(3) Decides not to issue the EO, but uses the bully pulpit to rally people to contact members of congress to take action, again another political victory.

(4) SCOTUS may rule that this needs an amendment to over turn, which would be difficult, if not impossible to get, but cost Trump no political Capital for trying.

 

[libertybele]

Most of you know that I am no Trump cheerleader, nor am I an NT (since Nov 2016, anyway), but this is a good move, and he wins politically, no matter the outcome.

(1) Issues the EO, where the Supreme court has to look at the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for the first time since 1898, and may agree that this does not aplly to people who enter here illegally.

(2) Issues the EO, SCOTUS may say Trump cannot do this, not rule other than that, but may say congress can by statute, which still gives Trump a political victory, and moves the ball into Congress's court.

(3) Decides not to issue the EO, but uses the bully pulpit to rally people to contact members of congress to take action, again another political victory.

(4) SCOTUS may rule that this needs an amendment to over turn, which would be difficult, if not impossible to get, but cost Trump no political Capital for trying.

I think he'll issue an e.o. and of course will be challenged.  It is time for SCOTUS to rule on this and it is their job to interpret the constitution. It will be interesting to see how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will rule and why.

[skeeter]

Levin is talking about this now. He makes an interesting point - the current policy is so antithetical to the intent of the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings that Trump may well be within his right to reinstitue the policy as ruled upon.

At least that’s what it sounds like he’s saying.

[Machiavelli]

Trump backs off executive order threat, says Congress is better path to end birthright citizenship

President Trump said Wednesday he’s still committed to ending birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants, but would prefer to go through Congress rather than use an executive order...

“I’d rather do it through Congress because that’s permanent. But we can certainly do it through … executive order,” he said.

Read the whole thing.

[libertybele]

This issue could go either way if it goes to the SCOTUS.  They simply could rule as to whether or not Pres. Trump is within his authority to issue and e.o.  They may not rule on the subject of birthright citizenship, but only on constitutionality of Trump's e.o. If that's the case, IMHO it will likely not go his way as it seems he is issuing an e.o. to amend the Constitution.

There is a simple though temporary way around this; declare an indefinite moratorium on ANY immigration to this country; including asylum.  Nothing really he can do about those already born here, but he can keep illegals from coming in and then giving birth.

[DB]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional

[Jazzhead]

This issue could go either way if it goes to the SCOTUS.  They simply could rule as to whether or not Pres. Trump is within his authority to issue and e.o.  They may not rule on the subject of birthright citizenship, but only on constitutionality of Trump's e.o. If that's the case, IMHO it will likely not go his way as it seems he is issuing an e.o. to amend the Constitution.

There is a simple though temporary way around this; declare an indefinite moratorium on ANY immigration to this country; including asylum.  Nothing really he can do about those already born here, but he can keep illegals from coming in and then giving birth.

Illegals coming here to give birth is a problem, but it's a very small problem.    The destruction to our booming economy, if employers can't get the workers they need, is a very big problem.

We need more legal immigration, not less.    That doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce the law with respect to those who cross the border illegally, but our low birthrate basically compels that we permit our workforce to be supplemented by folks from other nations.   Already,  farmers and local businessmen are feeling the dilemma of crops lost and business opportunities blown because there are not enough willing workers. 

Your foolish proposal to address birthright citizenship by banning all immigration is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.   

[Jazzhead]

Levin is talking about this now. He makes an interesting point - the current policy is so antithetical to the intent of the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings that Trump may well be within his right to reinstitue the policy as ruled upon.

At least that’s what it sounds like he’s saying.

It will be interesting to see the text of the EO.   The threshold problem with any EO with respect to the 14A is that it is Congress that, under its terms,  has the power "to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article".    And Congress has occasionally done that, such as its law that allowed John McCain (born in the Canal Zone) to be a birthright citizen.   

Perhaps the EO will simply instruct the executive branch to recognize birthright citizenship only to the extent that Congress, or the Courts, have heretofore mandated it.    There is no court decision that mandates the child of an undocumented immigrant be a citizen.   The Wong Kim Ark case is indeed pivotal, and establishes the proposition the jus soli indeed applies to the children of non-citizens,  but that case involved the child of parents legally resident here:

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth. 

But in the case of an undocumented illegal, there is no mutuality of allegiance - neither the federal government nor the sojourner acknowledges her presence here.   

[jpsb]

Levin is talking about this now. He makes an interesting point - the current policy is so antithetical to the intent of the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings that Trump may well be within his right to reinstitue the policy as ruled upon.

At least that’s what it sounds like he’s saying.

The intent of the 14th was to give citizenship to former slaves. Not generations of anchor babies.

[INVAR]

We need more legal immigration, not less.

WRONG.

We need only those who want to immigrate to the US and BECOME American.

We DO NOT WANT millions more third world squatters who simply enclave here without learning English to suck at the teat of welfare so they can send money they earn here back to their homeland.

ASSIMILATION - NOT Immigration.

Close the borders for the next decade or so, and let's work on those tens of millions of illiterate foreigners that have flooded us in the last several decades before we give thought to opening the border to anyone else.

[Oceander]

The intent of the 14th was to give citizenship to former slaves. Not generations of anchor babies.

Not so. 

[Cyber Liberty]

 

Whether one agrees with the President on this or not, he certainly did open the door for discussion of the "birthright citizenship" issue.  Many of us have been howling in the wilderness about this, and now people are waking up to what we've been saying for years.

I hope he pulls this off, one way or another.