DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 17, 2015, 05:12:13 PM
-
http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/17/floodgates-open-top-democrat-professor-says-ive-never-seen-any-politician-with-better-immigration-plan-than-trump/
-
If includes ending the birthright citizenship, than that involves changing the Constitution.
The president cannot amend the Constitution.
If Trump things he can do this, he is too ignorant to be president.
-
If includes ending the birthright citizenship, than that involves changing the Constitution.
The president cannot amend the Constitution.
If Trump things he can do this, he is too ignorant to be president.
.
This does not necessarily require a constitutional amendment.
The 14th can be interpreted in different ways....ya know....a living breathing document like Obama likes to say.
The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states: "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." The purpose of the clause was to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves and their descendants after the Civil War. Those who challenge birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and so neither are their American-born children; these children, they argue, cannot therefore automatically become citizens. Since there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant at the time of the amendment's adoption, immigration was not restricted or regulated back then, opponents also contend that the amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants.
-
All persons born in the United States means precisely what it says: there is no other possible interpretation.
In the 1860's, the US was actively encouraging immigration.
Trump cannot change the Constitution: no president has the power to do this.
-
Trump cannot change the Constitution: no president has the power to do this.
It absolutely can be changed without touching the constitution. Among developed nations, only the U.S. and Canada still offer automatic citizenship to children born on their soil. Not a single European country follows the practice. The evidence is that this entitlement encourages a booming birth tourism business (which undermines our immigration objectives) and virtually guarantees that the number of people in the country illegally will continue to grow.
"The Immigration and Nationality Act defines Birthright Citizenship in the United States, but there is also a clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the Supreme Court has interpreted the latter Birthright Citizenship clause as it applies to legal immigrants, it has never done so with regard to illegal aliens. The United States and Canada are the only developed nations that grant automatic citizenship so expansively to children born within their borders. Anyone born in the United States is considered an American citizen regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the U.S.
Automatic citizenship is granted according to federal statute, not the 14th Amendment, so critics of the policy argue that this could be reformed by changing or repealing the statute outright. Veteran legal scholar John Eastman believes that Members of Congress who passed the 14th Amendment never intended that it include Birthright Citizenship in its current form. Eastman points to the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act as providing the key to the meaning of the 14th Amendment and the intent of the Framers. The act provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." This formulation makes clear, Eastman writes, that any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and remained a citizen or subject of the parents' home country "was not entitled to claim the birthright citizenship provided by the 1866 Act." But for now, the constitutional meaning of the amendment as it applies to illegal immigrants will remain uncertain until the Supreme Court interprets it. The Birthright Citizenship Act, H.R. 140, would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act - not the Constitution - to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces."
-
It cannot be changed, and it will not be changed without a Constitutional Amendment.
Your argument is totally without merit.
Even it a law to end birthright citizenship were passed, Trump could not under any circumstances, do more than sign a law that Congress has already passed.
After that, it would surely be challenged and would go to the Courts, which would take more than one term to do, and then would be rejected on final appeal, if there was one.
Trump's Plan sucks, it can never work, and will never work.
Let us also consider that Trump has very poor skills at reaching agreement with other people in power: he only knows how to throw public tantrums and do stupid junior high trick like give out Lindsey Graham's phone number and badmouth Megyn Kelly. People refeuse to be intimidated by this sort of shot and then refuse to cooperate with this monumental blowhard, and nothing gets done. He cannot say "You're Fired" to Congress.
A person would have to be an ignorant toady or a blithering idiot to serve on a Trump Cabinet.
Trump divides people into two categories: Winners and Losers. He is the only winner: everyone else that doies not agree with Trump, is a loser.
That would include you, eventually.
While Trump is flailing about trying to order Congress around, Texas, yes, your Texas is becoming more and more Hispanic. The days when fools like Dolph Briscoe, Juniorbush and Ted Cruz can be elected by this changing population are rapidly passing. Your cause has been lost for a long time, and Trump could only make it worse by his incompetence. Your ideas of secession are fantasies.
-
We have always called ourselves "Americans".
Why shouldn't we convert all the citizens of these two continents to citizens of the United States?
The ultimate expression of the Monroe doctrine.
-
It cannot be changed, and it will not be changed without a Constitutional Amendment.
Your argument is totally without merit.
And still more demonstration of just how wrong our illustrious professor can get. No, this does not require a Constitutitonal amendment. I'm no big fan of Trump, although I know precisely why he's getting such a pulse in the polls. But the issue regarding the 14th was specific to the children of slaves. That was clearly its intent. The fact Government has allowed it to be applied to illegal immigrants is regrettable, but fixable....not with a Constitutional convention, but either thru clarifying legislation, or the courts making its interpretation more clearly.
The notion this requires a Constitutional convention, while the same group applauds the executive actions of Obama regarding immigration and the gun control is truly breathtaking
-
It would not require a constitutional convention, it would require a constitutional amendment.
And the odds that it would get one are quite small. If they were better, the amendments of this sort already proposed would have been endorsed by at least one of the major parties. But they haven't.
This country does, in fact NEED immigrants. That is how we have managed to make so many advances in computers and engineering, by luring people from India and China and Europe and of course the other countries in this hemisphere who want to be Americans and want their children to also be Americans.
Pass that amendment, and suddenly, Canada has a major advantage over us. It already has an advantage, because Canada requires far less paperwork and documentation.
You may continue to live in the fantasy world where words do not mean what they say. I could give a rat's ass, because you are wrong and time will prove that you are wrong.
The rest of Trump's policy is okay, except it is very vague in parts.
If it depends on revoking birthright citizenship it is Dead on Arrival.
The Constitution says nothing at al, about marriage, but you yutzes ranyed on and on about hos the dictionary is the ultimate authority about how all marriages must be between a man and a woman.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the Constitution suddenly does not mean what it says, it must be "interpreted" to mane what you clowns want it to say.
Here is what will really happen:
Congress will pass no law revoking birthright citizenship. The votes are not there. It they had been there, they would have passed it already and made Obama veto it just for show and to prove that they are great swinging dicks, as they did when the revoked the ACA a bazillion times with no results.
In the very unlikely case that they did pass such a law, it would immediately be challenged, and it would not be implemented finding a ruling of the Court. In the interim, thousands of Chinese, Indians, and others would try to get in before it is too late and the number of "anchor babies" would quadruple or more.
The changes are that the lower courts would rule it unconstitutional and the Supremes would refuse to even hear it.
If they did hear it, they would rule it unconstitutional, because it says what it says: anyone born here is a fucking citizen, and even MORE "anchor babies" would be born as citizens.
Then you furriner-hating clowns, yokels and hicks would try to get a constitutional amendment passed, but by then there would be even less of a chance of it passing.
Every years the number of people who oppose this sort of exclusionary stuff are greater. I will admit that there are some advantages to passing such an amendment, just as there advantages to me having my own VTO autogyro, but realistically this is not going to happen. There is a reason why no such law or amendment has not been passed: too many members of the Oligarchy oppose it, for many different reasons.
-
A Constitutional amendment requires a Convention to apply it. Point being, this does not require either
And no one claimed we don't need immigrants. We simply need them TO FOLLOW OUR LAWS
-
This is not about immigrants following our laws. Or are you advocating aborting a fetus that is about to be born in the USA, to deny it citizenship?
Trump might want to sell its parts to help pay for that wall.
Or would you wait for it to be born and deport the baby, and make it sue to obtain its citizenship?
-
This is 100% about illegal immigrants following our laws. And no, any child can be born to an illegal immigrant. It simply doesn't automatically make them a U.S. Citizen. That never was the intention of the 14th amendment, which is why a court ruling is all that's necessary to better interpret the 14th
-
Citizenship is defined in the main body of the Constitution as a birthright. It was certainly not revoked by an amendment that made even more people citizens.
You are simply full of shit and read too much rightwing crap.
-
Citizenship is.....and the 14th was specific to FREED SLAVES IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT WERE BROUGHT HERE AGAINST THEIR WILL. Not to illegal immigrants purposely ignoring our immigration laws & coming in.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.
But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
But this can all be cleared up simply by a court ruling
-
Okay, since it is soooo simple and the "precedent" you cite is 150 years old, why do you suppose that no court has ruled on this? This country has tried to keep out Jews, Slavs, Japanese, Chinese and others for decades since 1865.
Do you really believe that no court has ever been asked this question?
-
Because it simply hasn't, due to its potential political toxicity. I imagine that with all the emphasis that Trump is bringing to it however, some movement for a decision could be made now
-
Can't Make Illegals Leave the Country?
Eisenhower Did!
by Steven Ahle
(http://s18.postimg.org/e27mliaix/Eisenhower.jpg)
General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower 1947
Dwight D Eisenhower was the first president who had to deal with illegal immigration. A study in Texas found that in areas where there were lots of illegals, the pay was half of what fruit and vegetable pickers received in the rest of the state. He knew that as long as they were willing to take less money farmers would continue to use them in greater numbers. Since he was the president of the United States and not Mexico, he took firm and immediate action.
The first thing he did was to seal the border. It is interesting to note he was able to do it with only 1,075 border patrol agents. That's less than 10% of what we have today. I realize that technology has evolved, but it evolved for both sides. The operation is still well known for it's efficiency throughout the Border Control agency.
Now, he had to face the millions of illegals that were in the country. Never was amnesty a possibility. No one felt white guilt and no one accused Eisenhower of being a racist and even if they would have, Eisenhower wouldn't care. He fought and defeated Nazis once and he knew he could do it again. Eisenhower saw only one solution. Send them back to Mexico and other countries. Eisenhower was also aware that farmers making huge profits by using illegal labor had the kind of money to buy politicians (Comcast, Microsoft and Google) They were loathe to give up their profits. Eisenhower did not pander to the farmers for huge campaign contributions:
Ike appointed a former West Point classmate and soldier, Joseph "Jumping Joe" Swing to head the INS. Lyndon Johnson and Pat McCarran, democrat senators were for open borders and they had allies in strategic offices in the INS. Swing lived up to his name and jumped right out of the chute and he transferred all of Johnson's cronies away from the border and into jobs where they couldn't influence policy.
Then in June of 1954, the INS began project "Operation Wetback." In the first two months of the project, they gathered up 50,000 illegal immigrants during raids on farms known to use illegals. And that was only in Arizona and California. And better yet, it is estimated that 488,000 illegals fearing arrest left the country. They then expanded the operation and by September 80,000 illegals were arrested in Texas and thousands more fled the country. Problem solved.
And Eisenhower didn't drop them off at the border. He sent them 500 miles south of the US Mexican border. They were sent on ships that made the trip miserable and discouraged illegals returning to the United States.
Today, the liberal narrative is that it's impossible to send all of the illegals home. They are wrong. In fact, it's so simple I am surprised no one has suggested it before. If a landlord rents an apartment to illegal aliens or if employers hire illegals and are caught they are fined. DO AWAY WITH THE FINES. They don't work and the consumer ends up paying the fines anyway.
Let's do this. If a landlord rents an apartment or an employer hires an illegal alien, instead of fines let them serve one year in prison per illegal. Also, you need to remove judicial discretion. The sentence must be mandatory.
How many would have to be sentenced before all employers decide it's not worth it to do business with illegal aliens? My guess is very few. While you are working on that, make sure that illegals are not receiving welfare, Social Security, HEAP, HUD, Food stamps and Obamaphones. Without jobs, a place to live or government freebies, there would be no sense in staying.
There is just one step left. No appeals of deportation. If you are illegal, you leave. If you feel you deserve to be here, you can always go to the US embassy in your home country and apply like the law abiding do.
That is a real immigration fix and a permanent one too.
-
In one century and a half, during which the US tried its best to exclude Chinese, Japanese, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, and so on from citizenship this has NEVER COME UP?
Gimme a break.
If what you say is true, on the other hand, how is this issue less toxic now, when the Hispanic and Chinese population is greater than ever?
There will be no such law passed, and if somehow it were to pass, it would be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Wait and see, the future of this is obvious.
-
What Eisenhower did was deport some people. This was about deporting NON CITIZENS.
It has NOTHING to do with birthright citizenship. You are grasping at straws.
You are failing to grasp even one straw. Not even the short, loser straw do you grasp.
Here is the LAW as it stands:
Federal law provides that those who are born in any of the 50 states, Puerto Rico, the former Panama Canal Zone, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and Guam are all native-born citizens, including the children of an American Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or any other tribal member.
-
There will be no such law passed, and if somehow it were to pass, it would be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
That's one opinion. Considering that the point I, and I believe Cu4, have been making is that this NEEDS to be interpreted by the Supreme Court for complete & finalized clarity, since the 14th had nothing to do with immigration policy, when it was ratified
Wait and see, the future of this is obvious.
Looking forward to it
-
We will all be dead and turned to worm turds long, long before the Court rules to abolish birthright citizenship.
-
Good thing no one is arguing about the abolishment of birthright citizenship then. oy ::)
-
In the beginning, according to the basis of all out laws, English common laws states that anyone born here is a citizen.
Dred Scott changed that to declare that Negroes were NOT citizens.
Then the 14th Amendment declared that everyone born here WAS a citizen, including slaves.
Only slaves and Negroes and for a time Indians not taxed, have ever been excluded, ever, and they were declared citizens again in 1865 by the XIV Amendment.
The reason this has not been contested is that it is 100% clear: NO ONE born here is not a citizen. There are no grounds to contest it.
No court can change English common law and all the XIV Amendment did was to void the Dred Scott decision.
It has not been contested because it cannot be contested.
-
If what you say is true, on the other hand, how is this issue less toxic now,
when the Hispanic and Chinese population is greater than ever?
Most Hispanics and most Chinese are not illegals.
The law should be enforced or we do not have a border.
There will be no such law passed, and if somehow it were to pass, it would be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The "anchor baby agenda" will be found outside the original intent and will be outlawed.
The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the
world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens
The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:
Australia (2007)
New Zealand (2005)
Ireland (2005)
France (1993)
India (1987)
Malta (1989)
UK (1983)
Portugal (1981)
DEVELOPED NATIONS
Birthright Citizenship:
YES
Canada
United States
NO
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Faroe Islands
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Holy See
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
-
In the beginning, according to the basis of all out laws, English common laws states that anyone born here is a citizen.
the 14th Amendment declared that everyone born here WAS a citizen, including slaves.
Only slaves and Negroes and for a time Indians not taxed, have ever been excluded, ever, and they were declared citizens again in 1865 by the XIV Amendment.
And none have that has anything to do with immigration policy
The reason this has not been contested is that it is 100% clear: NO ONE born here is not a citizen. There are no grounds to contest it. It has not been contested because it cannot be contested.
Of course it can be....and NEEDS to be since the clear intent of the 14th, that was specific to freed slaves, has been whitewashed with its application to those who have come here, on their own free will, illegally. The statute requires complete interpretation.....along the lines that any child born here to a LEGAL Immigrant or Citizen receives the 14th amendment's bestowing of automatic citizenship.
Problem solved
-
What other countries do has NO BEARING on US citizenship. at all.
Anyone born here is a citizen. To change this will require a constitutional amendment.
Several such amendments have been proposed, but none has been supported by either party/
-
What other countries do has NO BEARING on US citizenship. at all.
This coming from the fella that belly aches about "every other country's supposed universal healthcare". The point C was making is exactly the point you keep trying to pull with the "look at all those other countries that do 'x'"
Anyone born here is a citizen. To change this will require a constitutional amendment.
No, it won't.
Several such amendments have been proposed, but none has been supported by either party/
Which is why you keep trying to harp this to require an amendment process, knowing how much more involved it is. When in legal reality, it doesn't, since the 14th had nothing to do with Immigration policy. The Supeme Court wil simply have to provide a final interpretation, which given the clear intent of the 14th, will be applicable to LEGAL immigrants and citizens of this country
-
The Supreme Court, as I suspected, has ALREADY RULED on birthright citizenship. This was done in 1898 while Donald Trump, cu4, sirs and the dimbulbs at breitbart and their invented "top Dem Prof" were still unborn. The case is US vs. Wong Kim Ark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark)
In addition, Trump proposes to DEPORT all the illegals. That is 11 or 12 million people, 62% of whom have been in the US for over 10 years. He also wants to deport their American born children, to "keep the families together". This is called ex post facto as it makes something that was legal when it occurred9the birth of these children) illegal by a law passed after the supposed offense. Ex post facto laws are illegal in the US and always have been.
So this "top Dem PROF" is either a creation of breitbart or an idiot. possibly both.
The Supreme Court rare rules on decisions made by previous courts: the usual procedure is not to hear them at all, and let previous decisions stand unchanged.
And again, Trump cannot pass laws, and cannot change the Constitution. An amendment would CLEARLY be necessary, and it ain't happening.
-
Pay attention.....I'll try to keep the words small.....
- NO ONE IS ARGUING ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.
- The Supreme Court HAS NOT RULED on the the application of the 14th amendment to IMMIGRATION POLICY
- THAT's what's required from the Supreme Court, and it doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment to make that interpretation
-
The case is US vs. Wong Kim Ark.
Wong Kim Ark's parents were not in the country illegally...which is a completely different dynamic.
This can be done by Congress or the Supreme Court....
and if Trump is elected it will be because "anchor babies" by illegal parents was not the intended purpose and is insanity.
-
The 14th Amendment says absolutely NOTHING about the nationality of the parents: it says, if you are born here, you are American. The legality of the parents is irrelevant.
Just watch and see, Trump will not be elected, the Supreme Court will not take up this case again, because it has already been decided, and there will be no amendment, either. And no one will deport eleven million people, especially they will not deport those born here.
Trump's plan sucks, Trump sucks, and he is meaningless, irrelevant and only sort of a cartoon clown to the main feature that is this election. And there are several extra clowns as well. It is time to break out the popcorn.
-
This country does, in fact NEED immigrants. That is how we have managed to make so many advances in computers and engineering, by luring people from India and China and Europe and of course the other countries in this hemisphere who want to be Americans and want their children to also be Americans.
This is totally true , we are siphoning off the best and brightest all the time. From Nazi rocket scientists to an hundred thousand Indian PHDs. In England they used to call this the "brain drain". Most of the well educated and highly skilled are legal immigrants.
The Constitution says nothing at al, about marriage, but you yutzes ranyed on and on about hos the dictionary is the ultimate authority about how all marriages must be between a man and a woman.
If the constitution is blank on the subject , where did the supreme court get the jurisdiction to rule on it?
-
The Court had to rule on the validity of gay marriage, because federal taxes, pension benefits, Social Security and such are based on spousal deductions. How can a person be married legally in Massachusetts, and then not be married if the couple moved to Alabama? The are many federal laws that deal with married couples, survivor benefits, testimony in courts that must be uniform across the country.
-
The case is US vs. Wong Kim Ark.
Wong Kim Ark's parents were not in the country illegally...which is a completely different dynamic.
EXACTLY
This can be done by Congress or the Supreme Court....
BINGO
-
The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case since the Kim Wong Ark case, and will not rehear it.
Trump does not and cannot force Congress to pas a Constitutional Amendment. There are several Amendments that have been proposed: if they were even minimally proper, they would have been passed.
But they aren't, and they weren't, and it is very doubtful they ever will be passed.
So sirs and CU4 are what is known as "shit outta luck".
Wait and see. No decisions, no amendment.
-
The Supreme Court has refused to hear this case since the Kim Wong Ark case, and will not rehear it.
Again, amazing this ability you have to predict.....in this case, what the Supreme will hear or not hear. Not to mention this would not be a rehearing of an old case
Trump does not and cannot force Congress to pas a Constitutional Amendment. There are several Amendments that have been proposed: if they were even minimally proper, they would have been passed.
ALL of which is completely moot, since this doesn't require any kind of an amendment. Not sure how many times that has to repeated.......then again, we must consider the source
-
Ah, but it DOES.
It is very unmoot. The Supremes have already decided this , as I said, in 1898.
If this were not the case, then there would not be at least two Amendments to do away with birthright citizenship pending.
I bet there are members of Congress and the Courts that know far more than you do, sirs.
-
They did NOT decide this as it relates to immigration. THAT's the kicker, since the case you cite, is referencing a LEGAL immigrant, in 1898
Any subsequent hearing would be on what's currently relevant....that being the disposition of ILLEGAL immigrants, as such there would be no rehearing of an old case, nor require any initiation of a Constitutional Amendment process. Congress merely needs to provide clarifying legislation, or a case must be brought in front of the Supreme Court for a final interpretation of the Federal statute
-
In the Wong Kim Ark case, a Mr Wong was born in the US.
He was acknowledged to be an American citizen.
I assume he had a passport or some identification that showed that (a) he was born in the US and (b) he was a citizen.
Someone told him that he was NOT a citizen when he returned from a trip.
There were lots of someones in San Francisco that did not want Chinese to be citizens, born here or not.
Mr Wong sued, and eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that he was a citizen. That was in 1898.
It DOES NOT MATTER that his paernts were born in the US or not: they ruled that he was a citizen because he was BORN HERE.
You are flailing about, grasping at straws, and yet you have not touched a single straw.
The Supreme Court has ruled that anyone born here (other than diplomat's children) are CITIZENS. The status of Mr Wong's parents or anyone else's parents is immaterial and has nothing to do with the case.
To make them non-citizens, therefore will require an amendment. That is why there are a couple of amendments waiting to be passed. Rather unsuccessfully so far.
Even if they did pass an amendment, it would not require American born children of illegals presently in the country to be deported as Trump wants to do.
He wants to do this because he is ignorant of the fact that ex post facto laws are not permitted.
His immigration policy will never be carried out, and he would not have the power to enact it if he were president. Presidents cannot change laws by edicts as he apparently thinks they can. We have no Fuhrer in the US, no Czar, no Duce.
-
And one more time....ANY SUBSEQUENT CASE/HEARING WOULD NOT REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Now, you can keep spouting and spewing how Trump wouldn't have such a power, but that's just fantasizing, since its moot.....there is no such need to interpret the current Federal statute
-
The Court had to rule on the validity of gay marriage, because federal taxes, pension benefits, Social Security and such are based on spousal deductions. How can a person be married legally in Massachusetts, and then not be married if the couple moved to Alabama? The are many federal laws that deal with married couples, survivor benefits, testimony in courts that must be uniform across the country.
It used to be uniform across the country.
Not that long ago.
-
Current federal statute is settled law.
If you are BORN HERE, you are a CITIZEN.
That fucking simple.
-
Any, let me repeat, ANY Federal statute can be modified, or even struck down by the Supreme Court. Not to mention could also be modified or altered by any subsequent legislation passed and signed into law. Did you never take even 1 Civics' class??
-
You are the one who does not know a rat's ass about this country. You do not know its history, you do not understand how laws are made and you think that your wish fulfillment can change settled law. In addition to being stupid, sirs, you are an ignoramus and an arrogant one at that.
I know that laws that run counter to the Supreme Court's decisions and the Constitution are frequently dispensed with. The various "Defense" of Marriage Acts, for example, were ruled unconstitutional and are now not enforced. All the anti-interracial marriage laws were overturned by Loving vs Virginia.
And if Congress passes any law declaring that anyone born here is NOT a citizen will be immediately contested and thrown out, since this is settled law.
You can repeat your silly horseshit forever, sirs, but it will be to no avail. You do not know diddly.
-
Current federal statute is settled law.
If that were true...why has the Left often tried to change the meaning of the Second Amendment which is "settled law"?
-
D'oh
-
Current federal statute is settled law.
If that were true...why has the Left often tried to change the meaning of the Second Amendment which is "settled law"?
Oh yea!
-
They want to repeal the amendment.
But they have done very little to do this.
-
NO ONE WANTS TO REPEAL IT.......THAT's what would require a Constitutional Amendment
Couldn't help but notice how you got slapped sideways with the rhetoric of "settled law", while folks like yourself contort the very English language to try and disprove the clear wording and intent of the 2nd amendment....one of SETTLED LAW
-
Wait and see how the judgement of the Court in the Wong Kim Ark case is upheld. People who are born here are citizens, period, no matter what the status of their parents might be. The odds are the Supreme Court or a lower court will simply refuse to hear any case that makes claims to the contrary, which means that the decision will be unchanged. In the unlikely case that the Supremes will hear it, they will reaffirm the previous decision.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with all the gun nut crap you spew. It is an entirely separate issue. Go spew about that elsewhere, it does not belong here.
Why don't you write Scalia or Roberts or any other judge and ask him? I have no control over any decision. I am merely stating how the legal system of this country works, which you seem incapable of comprehending.
Trump's ignorant immigration statement is the best the Republicans can do, and parts of it are clearly impossible. Trump claims that US-born children of illegals can be expelled from the country by simply passing a law. This cannot happen, as they are now considered citizenship. It is therefore not possible to pass a law stripping them of their citizenship for no reason other than who their parents are. That is what is called an ex post facto (after the fact) law, and all such laws are and always have been, invalid. You cannot punish anyone because of who their parents are. These citizens had no way to choose their parents, so they cannot be blamed or charged for it.
This is all an exercise in futility, as Trump will never be nominated, let alone elected, and even if he were, he would need to have the ability to get Congress to do something which neither a Republican nor a Democrat president has managed to do. Trump has demonstrated that he is no good at negotiation or compromise with others as equals, his experience consists in convincing dupes to invest in his projects and firing people he dislikes. He cannot fire Congress.
-
No on is going to be rehearing the Ark case, so its not going to be "upheld". Yes, LEGAL immigrants to this country who give birth will continue to see their children automatically become citizens. At some point though, either the Legislative Branch, or the Judicial branch is going to properly interpret the statute to exclude anyone coming here illegally. No Constitutional amendment, just a finalized interpretation of the Federal statute
But notice again how you got slapped bitched sideways into Sunday with the rhetoric of "settled law", while folks like yourself contort the English language to try and disprove the clear wording and intent of the 2nd amendment....one of SETTLED LAW. Priceless. So, you can try to hide in that's a "separate issue", when the argument you're using is identical
-
It is in no way identical.
As I have said a zillion times, the time to eliminate the overpopulation of firearms is over: there are so damned many of the hateful things that all we can do is just hope we don't get shot by some gun nut and lie low.
It is clear that society has changed sine the Constitution so much that the country would be entirely unrecognizable to Jefferson, Madison and Adams. The Supremes blew it when they ruled that everyday people that belonged to no militia or any other group to protect the society were some sort of "militia" and allowed to have weapons dozens of times as dangerous as one shot muskets.
The baboons and hyenas have taken over the zoo, the vampires have taken over the blood bank so far as sane gun regulations in this country, all we can do is dodge the bullets and form office pools on when and how the next gun nut massacre will take place.
With regard to citizenship, I believe that after 117 years have passed Wong Kim Ark is clearly what judges call "sett;ed law", You don't like it, go suck an egg.
When there is an actual ruling that a child of an illegal is not a citizen based on the Constitution and Wong Kim Ark, then you can crow about it. But that is not gonna happen, I am certain of that.
And no one, not Trump or anyone is going to deport 11 million illegals along with their American-born children, which is what Trump has said he'd do.
-
It is in no way identical.
It's 100% identical. 14th amendment..."Settled Law". 2nd Amendment...."country has changed...unrecognizable...only referred to muskets...was simply provided to hunt down slaves...yada, blah, anything but "settled law"
With regard to citizenship, I believe that after 117 years have passed Wong Kim Ark is clearly what judges call "sett;ed law", You don't like it, go suck an egg.
Good thing no one is trying to reargue the Ark case now, isn't it ::)
-
I have had far more intelligent with my cat than with you, sirs. Get lost.
-
You can always tell when the left's rhetorical quiver is empty..... or in this case, xo's penchant for arguing a point no one is making
-
Indeed. when you claim once more that "no one is making a point", that is when I know I have won the dispute.
-
LOL....and when's the last time I ever claimed that?? Not making a point is not the same as arguing a point no one is making. You, a language professor, do grasp the difference, correct?? One would hope so. For instance, the only one arguing some requirement to rehear the Ark case, as it relates..... to anything.....is you. No one else is making that as some requirement to......anything
-
If Congress passes some law claiming that the American-born children of undocumented foreigners are not American citizens, this will immediately be subject to charges that the decision in the Wong case holds that ALL American-born people are citizens, and that will result in a decision by a lower court, which will either be appealed to the Supreme Court, or rejected by the Supreme Court. If rejected, the rejection will nullify the law passed by Congress.
That is how the system works.
-
If Congress passes some law claiming that the American-born children of undocumented illegal foreigners are not American citizens,.....
....would likely be proclaimed unconstitutional, from the likes of your side, at which point, it would be fast tracked up the judicial chain, passing thru whatever Federal Appeals Court that had jurisdiction, at which time the Supreme Court would then make a ruling of its Constitutionality based on the clear wording of the 14th amendment.
It will have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Ark case, since that case involved LEGAL FOREIGNERS. I'm sure your side will keep harping that case, in which my side will continue to remind your side & the Justices (although they wouldn't need reminded), that case involved LEGAL FOREIGNERS that are completely SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of THIS COUNTRY
THAT's how this country works. You might have caught on to that, had you not completely skipped Civics.....or U.S. History for that matter
-
People born foreigners, either legal or illegal, are still born here, and are legally citizens.
The 14th Amendment does not state that the status of parents is in any way involved in the fact that anyone born here is a citizen.
The Court could very easily simply refuse to hear any case involving anyone born here not being a citizen, which would mean that thew Wong case would be the precedent.
-
People born foreigners, either legal or illegal, are still born here, and are legally citizens.
Yes, that's how the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, and abused, since its intent was never to include anyone here illegally, since they are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of this country.
The 14th Amendment does not state that the status of parents is in any way involved in the fact that anyone born here is a citizen.
We had no immigration policy when the 14th was passed. The 14th was largely facilitated by the Civil War, to make sure that people wouldn't try to claim that any children born to the parents of freed slaves, wouldn't then be claimed as slaves again. It had nothing to do with immigration
The Court could very easily simply refuse to hear any case involving anyone born here not being a citizen, which would mean that thew Wong case would be the precedent.
OR.....they could hear the case, recognizing that this is a different dynamic, since the wording of the 14th was very clear, and could be applied to the Wong case, while any subsequent case involving ILLEGAL foreigners' children was never intended to be included in the 14th
-
If you are born here, you are a citizen, period. Even if sirs does not think so.
Watch and see how all the nonsense you are spewing is simply not true.
This is not up to you, it is not up to me, but it is precisely what the Supreme Court said it was in 1898.
You can also see the comments made when Congress passed the 14th Amendment. It was clear to them at that time that born here=citizen, regardless of who the parents were, whether the person was a gypsy or an Oriental or whatever.
The discussions that I posted make this clear to me, but you wish to believe in a universe of your own device.
-
It is insane to allow anchor babies and whatever we need to do to halt this non-sense should be done.
-
If you are born here, you are a citizen, period. Even if sirs does not think so.
I realize this insidious need to argue issues points no one is making....in this case, how sirs supposedly has proclaimed that the 14th only applies to legal immigrants, and that because I say it, makes it some fact. That's a decision ONLY the Supreme Court can make legal. I can opine all I want, just as you can spew how the 2nd amendment was all about hunting slaves with muskets. But I never claimed or even inferred that it was "up to me". It's simply a conclusion I've made, based on the clear wording of the 14th.
And AT THE TIME, the amendment was ratified, WE HAD NO IMMIGRATION POLICY, so that born here was referring to those born to people who had come here either legally, or by force, such as the slaves were.
So, we simply need the Supreme Court to rule on the current Federal statute to then make it "settled law", because until then, its anything but
-
It is settled law because it was settled in 1898. That was 117 years ago, time enough for anything to settle. People have been born to all sorts of people, legal and illegal, lived their entire lives as citizens and died as citizens during the time that has passed. It will do no good to flail uselessly about, no one will lose their citizenship because their experience did not conform to the strange beliefs that the rightwing ratbastards have drummed into your mind.
The Supremes would have to UNSETTLE this to make it conform to your beliefs, and I do not see that happening this year or next, and for every year that passes this will become less likely, as will any constitutional amendment such have been waiting unsupported in the nether regions of Congress.
It would be okay by me if an amendment were passed declaring that no one who was born here and did not spend the first two years of his/her life here before being eligible to apply for citizenship, but I do not see that happening.
-
Yes, it is settled.....FOR LEGAL IMMIGRANTS/FOREIGNERS.
What's not settled is the 14th's application to those who are not completely subect to the jurisdiction of this country....i.e.....ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS/FOREIGNERS
So no, SCOTUS doesn't have to unsettle anything related to the Wong case. That ruling was consistent with the wording of the 14th.
And no, it wouldn't require an Constitutional Amendment either, since it merely requires SCOTUS to more consisely interpret the current Federal statute as it relates to the clear wording of the 14th
::)
-
Wait and see, you are simply wrong.
-
It would be okay by me if an amendment were passed declaring that no one who was born here and did not spend the first two years of his/her life here before being eligible to apply for citizenship....
Well I agree with that XO.
-
Wait and see, you are simply wrong.
And given your track record of proclamations & accusations, makes me all giddy inside with anticipation
-
I am the one that predicted that the Afghanistan invasion was likely to last for far too long, and that Bush's Iraq War would reveal no WMD's and would be an expensive disaster.
-
Well, 1 out of 1000+ isn't bad I suppose. Even a broken clock is more often correct than you've demonstrated yourself to be in claim after claim after claim after claim
-
People born foreigners, either legal or illegal, are still born here, and are legally citizens.
Yes, that's how the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, and abused, since its intent was never to include anyone here illegally, since they are not completely subject to the jurisdiction of this country
I think there is a problem with the definition of "jurisdiction" in this context.
Isn't a person who is standing, even for a short period, on the territory of the USA subject to the jurisdiction that governs that territory?
-
Absolutely....as in they are supposed to abide by any law, be it local, country, state, or Federal. If they don't, they're reprimanded by law enforcement......unless of course you reside in a sanctuary city. Nor is one who has just walked onto the territory obligated to the jurisdiction of jury duty, or able to vote.
In other words, the Supreme Court is necessary to interpret the existing Federal statute, as it relates to illegal immigrants & the 14th amendment
-
I do not disapprove of birthright citizenship, even though it does cause problems , there doesn't seem to be a better policy ready to use.
In my opinion , a person is under the jurisdiction of the USA whenever she is within the part of the world in which this person must obey US law, it is corollary to this that US law must be the jurisdiction of a persons birth when the person is born in US jurisdiction.
A person giving birth does not gain the rights of a citizen , but the infant being born does.
This is exploitable for people who want to immigrate and find a loophole in our standing laws, this can be a problem.
But doesn't it demonstrate that our immigration laws are too onerous if circumventing them is worth dedicating a child to this purpose?
I hope that it won't be too long before immigration laws can be revamped , with good sense and efficacy in mind .
When a person is healthy and honest and strong and smart , we should be inviting them in , with incentive.
-
I do not disapprove of birthright citizenship, even though it does cause problems ,
there doesn't seem to be a better policy ready to use.
Uh?
At least one of the child's parents should be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.
None of these countries have "birthright citizenship" and neither should we.
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda,
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Rasmussen Reports Polling Data:
April 1-2, 2015
"Suppose a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child in the United States. Should that child automatically become a citizen of the United States?"
Yes: 38%
No: 54%
-
Again, its simple for me.....and perfectly worded in the 14th.....any child born to a citizen who is completely subject to the jurisdiction of this country....which would include any LEGAL Immgrants/foreigners, receives birthright citizenship to the U.S.A. And that could include either the mother or the father
This is why the a case needs to be brought before the Supreme Court, for an updated interpretation of the present Federal Statutes, to put this to rest
----------------------------------------------
Not to mention there are 2 other means that can be applied at the same time that will absolutely start bring back into control our borders and the flood of illegal immigrants.
- An actual physical wall. NO, it won't stop all, but it'll put a significant choke on the effort. Not to mention, is supported by a majority of the population
- Actual enforcement of immigration laws.....which includes defunding sanctuary cities, and punishing large scale employers of low wage illegal immigrants
---------------------------------------------
Those rather 3 simple acts alone, would absolutely bring back control of our southern border, with no need for militarizing the border, or mass deportations. All 3 would also lead to people self deporting, if there are no jobs to be had, because employers of illegal immigrants are being fined/jailed, cities could no longer be able to bare the financial toll of keeping illegal immigrants, and there was no more anchor baby madness
What we ALSO need to do, is to streamline the current immigration process....it takes WAY too long in its current state. Whatever bureaucratic nightmares have been imposed, needs to be taken down, to allow those who want to come here an incentive to abide by our laws, and not break them. THIS is what "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" would look like
Is there any candidate running on such an immigration reform platform??
-
Rasmussen Reports Polling Data:
April 1-2, 2015
"Suppose a woman enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child in the United States. Should that child automatically become a citizen of the United States?"
Yes: 38%
No: 54%
I don't mind being in a minority opinion.
What happens to persons born outside their parents home country , and without proper birth certificate?
We don't need to create a class of noncitizens , who belong exactly nowhere.
-
They simply belong with their parents, Plane
-
I don't mind being in a minority opinion. What happens to persons born outside their parents home country ,
and without proper birth certificate? We don't need to create a class of noncitizens , who belong exactly nowhere.
#1. many, many, many, many would not come if they didn't get a reward for coming.
#2. they go home with the parents and sort it out....just like almost every other developed country says no to anchor babies.
our rights trump foreigners and illegals having babies on our dime.
hell they should be thrilled to get the baby delivered free on the American taxpayer!
-
Trump's paln would be very expensive, divisive and will not work.
The rest of the GOP candidates have no plan at all.
It is not possible to deport American citizens. Laws in this country cannot be retroactive
-
Trump's paln would be very expensive, divisive and will not work.
It's expensive and divisive to allow illegality to prevail.
It is not possible to deport American citizens. Laws in this country cannot be retroactive
I am fine with stopping anchor babies tomorrow....
but whats funny is how it can only be a one way street
millions upon millions upon millions can come in
but heaven forbid no possible way they can go the other way out!
it's a joke....millions can only come one way....but not go back?
It's insanity and defies logic.
-
I am fine with stopping anchor babies tomorrow....
but whats funny is how it can only be a one way street
millions upon millions upon millions can come in
but heaven forbid no possible way they can go the other way out!
it's a joke....millions can only come one way....but not go back?
It's insanity and defies logic.
You'll have to consider the source
-
If citizens can be deported against their will, so can you. Revoking citizenship for just existing is a very slippery slope.
They could solve the anchor baby problem (assuming that is IS a problem) with a Constitutional amendment, I mere law would not work, because by law everyone born here is a citizen, period.
Most of the "anchor babies" come from China.The parents are generally middle class, because they can get a visa. The US does not hand out visas to everyone. Not all, perhaps not even most, of these American-born Chinese will actually come here to live. Being born ins the US is seen as a sort of insurance against bad times in China
Anchor babies can go out as well as in. Every years there are thousands of people who COULD live here and are citizens, choose not to and go elsewhere. There are people who really do self deport themselves.
-
Anchor babies can go out as well as in. Every years there are thousands of people who COULD live here and are citizens, choose not to and go elsewhere. There are people who really do self deport themselves.
What describes most of these people?
-
..............Cleveland will rock...........
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/maybe-this-time-really-is-different/ar-BBlXUUu
believe that Trump has a ceiling of support around his current levels of roughly 25 percent. But if other insurgents like Cruz and Carson have their own support nearing a combined 25 percent, why can’t Trump potentially garner a solid share of their backing if they falter?
I am just old enough to remember back when Party conventions were not a waste of time.
If the Cleveland convention is fractious and requires multiple ballots , blame Donald Trump.
If the Republican convention is interesting , would anyone watch the Dem convention?
-
The conventions will be, as they have been for a long, long, time, promos for the parties, and I imagine that they will be equally exciting. By the time the convention comes around, there will be many, many candidates will drop out, mostly for lack of money, or perhaps because of scandal, and there is a high probability that the candidate will already be chosen.
As for giving a name for people who prefer to live in some other country besides this one, each person has his/her own reasons and they probably have much to do with personal relationships , like spousal relationships, homesickness, a desire to live among family more than other things. Politics is probably far down the list for many.
Costa Rica has rather exciting politics, and so does Uruguay. In small countries, your single vote is vastly more powerful: one in three million or four million rather than one in three hundred million. Both these countries are free, have a free press and a lot of creative people.
-
The conventions will be, as they have been for a long, long, time, promos for the parties,....
This is precisely what the party leaders want , the wealthy backers , the oligarchy.
Why should I want such a thing?
-
At what point did I say that the party bosses want to please you or the public?
The fact that we have but two parties and they determine the fate of the country makes their conventions a matter of interest.
I would prefer to see a mud wrestling match between the candidates. It would not be more informative, but then nothing anyone says at a convention is all that informative. I recall the GOP endorsing the Brickell Amendment in 1952, 1956, 1960 and perhaps even 1964. This is the only mention of it anyone outside the Beltway ever heard. It was never passed nor close to passing. There was a lot of talk about "busing" for a long time as well.
-
If citizens can be deported against their will, so can you. Revoking citizenship for just existing is a very slippery slope.
Good thing no one is pushing to "revoke citizenship". Nor are "citizens deported". That'd be an oxy moron. Those who are here illegally, can and should be deported. But that's a whole different ball of wax
They could solve the anchor baby problem (assuming that is IS a problem) with a Constitutional amendment, I mere law would not work, because by law everyone born here is a citizen, period.
And any law would not be required to be retroactive. The law can simply say "as of this date". Problem solved. Of course, we all understand why you're trying to make this much grander and harder than it would be.....to infer some great non-existent tragedy, with all these mass deportations of supposedly legal citizens
And no, most of these anchor babies are coming directly from Mexico & Central America. China comes in a distant third, as it relates to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS giving birth to children, in this country. We're not going to let you get away with trying to meld ILLEGAL with LEGAL immigrants. This WHOLE debate is about ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, and the children they give birth to. Your own Wong case settled that issue, long ago
-
Trump proposes sending the American-born children back with their families. "They gotta go.", he says.
That is not going to happen. It cannot happen. Trump should be smart enough to know that, but apparently he isn't, or he is deliberately appraling to people who aren't, who are legion among his followers.
Trump is the most divisive creep in our politics since Jesse Helms and George Wallace.
-
No, that would still be your fella Obama, as the most devise, polarizing, politician this country has ever been exposed to. And he hides it well in his skin color, because of course any criticism of him is tantamount to racism
-
Trump is far, far more divisive. He insults everyone who dares to criticize him.
He accuses the Mexicans of being rapists and criminals when their actual incidence of crime is lower than that of citizens.
-
Context is everything, and when one listens to him in context, minus the ignorant ideology, one can grasp how we wasn't paint-brushing all "Mexicans"
-
When Trump says it, every Mexican and Mexican American is offended. Trump is full of shit and only ignorant people will vote for him. Not even all of them, He is simplistic and shoots off his mouth and deliberately offends Hispanics, women and anyone who questions his silly proclamations.
The concept that the best recommendation for a president is that he has never held public office, (like Fiorina, Carson abd Trump) is rather like saying that the best person to fix your transmission is someone who has never seen an automobile. Washington is full of politicians and they know how to make things happen in government and how to prevent anything from happening. A person who does not understand this and how to deal with politicians will fail.
That was Jimmy Carter's problem: he was honest and forthright and called things as he saw them. And he was bamboozled totally by Kissinger and others. The whole Iran hostage situation was planned to ruin Carter. He was betrayed and deceived and ruined.
-
Your opinion has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Nor has anyone claimed that the "best recommendation" is someone who has never held public office. Who's made that as the "best recommendation"??
The best reommendation is someone who has had some success in an executive position, be it in the private or public sector. The bigger the position, such as CEO or a large company or Governor of a state, the better
-
We have had exactly TWO businessmen as presidents: Herbert Hoover and Juniorbush. The worst anhd next to worst presidents in our history. CEOs SUCK at politics.
-
Bush was fine on the foreign front, and tried to be Democrat light, on the domestic front. His continuing the Democrat effort that everyone should own a home, prominantly led to the housing bubble burst
-
Bush's biggest mistake was mongering that idiotic Iraq War. her was the biggest foreign policy FAILURE in history.
He was NOT "fine" he was a fucking disaster. He was the main cause of the instability in the Middle East.
-
Your opinion on the idiocy of the 2nd Iraq war is duly noted....and rejected. If you wish to rehash that old debate, by all means, start another thread. Last I checked this was about immigration, and the current crop of candidates
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_occupation
http://us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/5315/most-intelligent-presidents?utm_medium=cm&utm_source=outbrain&utm_campaign=ao.cm.ob.dt.5315&utm_term=dt#3-James-K-Polk
George Bush is a "Businessman President" less than George Washington was a "businessman President".
More than half of our Presidents spent some time as investors or as business managers , if time spent as attorneys in private practice counts as business then a solid majority is "businessman President".
I suppose that being a former governor of Texas does not remove George bush from being a businessman for part of his career , but this qualifies most of them the same.
-
Truman was a haberdasher and Grant ran a livery stable. Neither was very successful.
The main reason candidates blather on and on about "business experience" is that they are hitting up businessmen for donations.
"I am like you, so I will act as you would" is the general thought.
Trump is a real estate wheeler dealer who has frequently bailed on projects leaving others with huge losses.
He is a disreputable businessman at best, with a meglomaniac desire to name everything after himself.
-
His experience with bankruptcy might be very handy in the near future.
-
Boy, ain't that the truth
-
No, it ain't.
Stop the government from paying $35 million per airplane for starters.
Trump only used bankruptcy to avoid paying for his mistakes and to stick his partners with the debt. He is the Biggest Troll in America.