Exclusive: Trump To Terminate Birthright Citizenship

[edpc]

But people aren’t risking open ocean and deadly terrain crossing to just any country. No, they’re risking all that to come to and blend into the woodwork of the mother lode of social safety nets...the good old USA.

I guess you never read about the drownings in the Med, during the migrant influx to European nations, the unrest in N. Africa, height of ISIS, and the conflict in Syria.  There has also been an influx of people to Brazil from Venezuela.  Many of the migrants in Central American countries go no further than Mexico.

[kidd]

Exactly.

Trump will have set the precedent for using an EO to rescind the 'interpretation' of the 14th Amendment as currently applied and understood, and when a Democrat holds the White House again, look for that precedent to be used via EO to end the 2nd Amendment and it's 'interpretation' as currently applied and understood.

Here's another part of the 14th amendment:

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

So the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade and Kelo v New London have already set the precedent you fear.

[INVAR]

Here's another part of the 14th amendment:So the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade and Kelo v New London have already set the precedent you fear.

Granted.

More to come I am sure.

[truth_seeker]

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and the 14th amendment is wide open to interpretation.

If the USSC decided the intent of the 14th Amendment never anticipated people entering the country in order to give birth to children, then chain immigration AND costly benefits tied to the citizen child, perhaps, it would change in the direction most conservatives speak of wanting.

Like Trump or not, he shakes up boxes. In order to begin the process.




 

[GrouchoTex]

It’ll probably come down to Roberts again, who massively disappointed with his Obamacare ruling.  This issue has been addressed by SCOTUS under Ark in 1898.  While it’s not unheard of for a ruling on the 14th to be changed (see Plessy and Brown), the Roberts view of stare decisis isn’t encouraging.

True.
An EO may force this to the Supreme court to have this settled.
As you say, stare decisis, could just put us back where we are at the moment.
Nothing has really changed since Ark.
Even Plessy provided for "equal" but, of course, there was really nothing remotely "equal" to show for it, only "separate".

If they all say during their confirmation hearings that Roe V Wade is settled law, how can they possibly overturn Ark?
I hope I am wrong about Roe, and Ark, but I don't have a lot of stock in that, based on stare decisis.
Nothing has, so far, has given me any hope that that either one of these rulings will change.

[edpc]

Nothing has, so far, has given me any hope that that either one of these rulings will change.

The thing about Roe is the admin has every intention of making it a state issue if it’s overturned.  Abortion will still be legal in some, restricted in others, perhaps banned in a few.  That’s the out for the three federal branches.  There’s no such option for US citizenship.  Individual states cannot make that determination.  If they tried challenges under equal protection, as they did with gay marriage, it’ll be a mess.

[mirraflake]

We supposedly wanted an "outsider" and we got one, which means he's clueless as to what the Constitution says and what the parameters of his power are, as well as being ignorant as to what he actually can do.

Thus, he's not using the authority he does have, and being very Obama-like in using EO's to change things he has no right to change.

This means nothing, and will accomplish nothing.

Trump usually gets his way, You  will be sad once again when he comes out on top on this issue  <Nope with the insults>
@musiclady

[edpc]

Speaker Ryan: ‘You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order’

“Well, you obviously cannot do that,” Ryan told Kentucky talk radio station WVLK. “You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.”

“You know, as a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process. But where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/30/breaking-news-speaker-ryan-you-cannot-end-birthright-citizenship-with-an-executive-order-949387

[musiclady]

Trump usually gets his way, You  will be sad once again when he comes out on top on this issue  <Nope with the insults>
@musiclady

Thanks, Mod, for removing the insult before I had to see it.

But to the point of your post, I will most certainly not be "sad" if good things actually happen for the country.

I'm just not cheering and whooping and hollering at the words of a guy who doesn't have a history of a) telling the truth, or b) following through on his 'red meat' to the fan club.

Realism is our friend.  Telling the truth is even better, so give it a try.

[jpsb]

Exactly.

Trump will have set the precedent for using an EO to rescind the 'interpretation' of the 14th Amendment as currently applied and understood, and when a Democrat holds the White House again, look for that precedent to be used via EO to end the 2nd Amendment and it's 'interpretation' as currently applied and understood.

The 14th was meant to free the salves, period end of story.

[edpc]

The 14th was meant to free the salves, period end of story.

Except the SCOTUS ruled 6-2, allowing birthright citizenship to a person of Chinese descent, in 1898.  Supposedly, that was in a time when an all white, all male judiciary would be racist and jingoistic.  Nevertheless, that ruling has stood for 120 years.

[SirLinksALot]

The 14th was meant to free the salves, period end of story.

We have a practical matter to consider --- there are tens of millions of people who obtained birthright citizenships in the past. They are now AMERICAN. Some of them already hold elected office ( Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley come to mind ).

How will this EO, assuming it goes into effect,  affect them?

Should we rescind their citizenships as well?

[Sanguine]

We have a practical matter to consider --- there are tens of millions of people who obtained birthright citizenships in the past. They are now AMERICAN. Some of them already hold elected office ( Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley come to mind ).

How will this EO, assuming it goes into effect,  affect them?

Should we rescind their citizenships as well?

That is a good question.  I believe that Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley were born to legal residents of the U.S. though.

We could have a temporary program set up to allow those who are not citizens under the EO to apply for citizenship during a certain period of time.  No more than 5 years.  They would have to show that they have lived in the U.S. since birth and are residing here now, and, as in the case of Mexican citizens, would have to give up claims to citizenship in other countries. 

[musiclady]

I almost never report things to the Mods, but this is so foul and out of line that you have forced me to.

This is a discussion board. People have different opinions.

Stop this vile nonsense.

[mirraflake]

Thanks, Mod, for removing the insult before I had to see it.

But to the point of your post, I will most certainly not be "sad" if good things actually happen for the country.

I'm just not cheering and whooping and hollering at the words of a guy who doesn't have a history of a) telling the truth, or b) following through on his 'red meat' to the fan club.

Realism is our friend.  Telling the truth is even better, so give it a try.

Trump has followed through on most of his campign issues other than the wall.  Tax cuts, less gov't regulation, booming economy, stronger military, 2 conservatives scj,  on an on.

The wall is a tuffy because many in his own party fight him on it. And from what I have been reading lately he is going to pull us out of Afghanistan next year no matter what the General say.

Jeesh give the guy some credit..will ya? 
He has done incredibly well in the 22 months he has been President.

BTW I called you a   fake with no bad words.

@musiclady

[sneakypete]

President Trump plans to sign an executive order that would remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on U.S. soil, he said yesterday in an exclusive interview for "Axios on HBO," a new four-part documentary news series debuting on HBO this Sunday at 6:30 p.m. ET/PT.

https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

@edpc

HALLELUJAH!  Should have been done decades ago!

[Victoria33]

"Exactly....and when a Democrat holds the White House again, look for that precedent to be used via EO to end the 2nd Amendment and it's 'interpretation' as currently applied and understood."

@INVAR

When I was working in politics, a person of influence told me with pleasure about a rule the Texas Senate Republicans were going to pass.  I told her, "Do you want this rule to be a rule when Democrats control the Senate?"  She said, "No!" Then she said she was contacting the Senate Republicans and tell them not to do it, and why they should not do it.

Never write a law, a rule, an Executive Order that would hurt you if the other party was in control.

[sneakypete]

Something tells me that this is going to set bad precedent..  I rather have him go through Congress..

@kevindavis

Do you really think there are enough congresscritters with the balls necessary to do that?

[mirraflake]

We supposedly wanted an "outsider" and we got one, which means he's clueless as to what the Constitution says and what the parameters of his power are, as well as being ignorant as to what he actually can do.

Thus, he's not using the authority he does have, and being very Obama-like in using EO's to change things he has no right to change.

This means nothing, and will accomplish nothing.

Sooooooo.. you want anchor babies at 200-300k per year to continue?  Our gov't leaders never meant for that amendment to include illegals. If you heard Rush today and the conservative legal scholars he cited you would know that.

I have always said <NOPE>You fight nearly everything Trump has done or wants to do.

@musiclady
@jpsb

[sneakypete]

Exactly.

Trump will have set the precedent for using an EO to rescind the 'interpretation' of the 14th Amendment as currently applied and understood, and when a Democrat holds the White House again, look for that precedent to be used via EO to end the 2nd Amendment and it's 'interpretation' as currently applied and understood.

@INVAR

Irrelevant.  We either shut down "instant citizenship" NOW,or we won't have a country to save in 20 years.

[musiclady]

Trump has followed through on most of his campign issues other than the wall.  Tax cuts, less gov't regulation, booming economy, stronger military, 2 conservatives scj,  on an on.

The wall is a tuffy because many in his own party fight him on it. And from what I have been reading lately he is going to pull us out of Afghanistan next year no matter what the General say.

Jeesh give the guy some credit..will ya? 
He has done incredibly well in the 22 months he has been President.

BTW I called you a   fake with no bad words.

@musiclady

Well, I'm glad you spewed insults at me (that the Mod had to remove) without spewing vulgar filth at me as @jpsb did.  Bully for you.   

And I'm glad you're impressed with how "incredibly well" Trump has done.

Rest assured that you have company here...... even to the point of fainting spells and love letters............. but not everyone is impressed with a few words and EO's (especially since they were supposedly bad under Obama).

The truth is, that even if he follows through with this EO, it can be rescinded and refused by the courts.

It's no cause for celebration.

But go for it, @mirraflake .  I'm happy that you're happy.

[sneakypete]

We supposedly wanted an "outsider" and we got one, which means he's clueless as to what the Constitution says and what the parameters of his power are, as well as being ignorant as to what he actually can do.

Thus, he's not using the authority he does have, and being very Obama-like in using EO's to change things he has no right to change.

This means nothing, and will accomplish nothing.

@musiclady

One thing it will certainly do is expose the politicians who value their office more than their country. The roaches will  have to emerge from the cracks once that light shines on them.

[musiclady]

Sooooooo.. you want anchor babies at 200-300k per year to continue?  Our gov't leaders never meant for that amendment to include illegals. If you heard Rush today you would know that. I have always said you are secretly a liberal masquerading as a conservative. You fight nearly everything Trump has done or wants to do.

@musiclady
@jpsb

Why, in heaven's name, do you think I want anchor babies??   What a preposterous conclusion based on my opinion that EO's aren't lasting.

Yikes.  Try logic for a change.   

And if you find me so offensive, put me on IGNORE.  There's nothing forcing you to read my words, and certainly nothing forcing you to draw erroneous conclusions from them either.

You'll be happier if you just don't pay any attention to people who still aren't enamored with Trump.

[Frank Cannon]

Well, I'm glad you spewed insults at me (that the Mod had to remove) without spewing vulgar filth at me as @jpsb did.  Bully for you.   

Want me to correct that?

[sneakypete]

Maybe, just maybe, this will stand a challenge in SCOTUS. Depending upon which Roberts shows up that day.

@skeeter

Chances are it is going to be the homo one with the adopted kids fathered by Nazis in Argentina,and his handlers will pull his chain.