Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the strict Constitutionalists who deride judicial activism now support the usurpation of the legislature because of the nature of the issue? I get the impression that the welcoming or rejection of judicial activism is very issue specific. How principled.
The legislature has already made themselves clear on this issue. How do we know that for a fact?
Look at CURRENT US Nationality Law. I'm specifically referring to subsections (a) and (b) in the following linked CURRENT Federal Law. If "everyone" born in the US were actually automatically US citizens via the 14th Amendment, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property
You need to understand WHY that specific legal exception had to be made for US-born Indians (Native Americans), Eskimos, Aleutians, and other US aboriginals to understand WHY not all those born in the US are automatically US Citizens.
(Hint: It's because they are born subject to a foreign sovereign entity. So are illegal aliens' children, but no legal exception has ever been made for them as was made for US-born members of US aboriginal Tribes in the Indian Citizenship Act of1924 - LONG after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.)
"Anchor babies" are political policy citizens only, not actual legal citizens.
So the strict Constitutionalists who deride judicial activism now support the usurpation of the legislature because of the nature of the issue? I get the impression that the welcoming or rejection of judicial activism is very issue specific. How principled.
Nonsense. By your own words then slavery would still be constitutional. Do you consider the abolishment of slavery unprincipled? I didn't think so.
Nonsense. By your own words then slavery would still be constitutional. Do you consider the abolishment of slavery unprincipled? I didn't think so.
What on Earth are you talking about? The poster to whom I was responding expressly stated that he believed the judiciary should decide this issue because the legislature would not because it was unable to form a consensus and legislate accordingly. That is the very definition of judicial activism.
The comparison to slavery is remarkable inapplicable and foolish.
With this EO, I think he is trying to discourage CARAVANS of people from crossing Mexico to come to the US.
Yes, it seems unconstitutional at face value. As others have stated, the 14th was not intended to be for generating anchor babies. That has been argued both ways. At the very least, it will start the conversation about whether or not we as a people want this practice to continue.
Supporters of this should be very careful what they wish for. Even if this passes constitutionality, and there is no logical reason it shouldn't be laughed out of the SC chambers for its blatant power-grabbing, fascist illegality, the potential consequences go far beyond the immigration issue.
Without birthright citizenship, what actually grants citizenship? What prevents it from being removed from native Americans arbitrarily or based on things like religion or political views? What protects you and yours from being deported yourselves should the winds change?
We are in a national crisis, but it's not from immigration.
What on Earth are you talking about? The poster to whom I was responding expressly stated that he believed the judiciary should decide this issue because the legislature would not because it was unable to form a consensus and legislate accordingly. That is the very definition of judicial activism.
The comparison to slavery is remarkable inapplicable and foolish.
No it's not. That amendment was put into the Constitution to protect the voting rights of former slaves and their children. It was a just and needed amendment. How it was interpreted many years later to include the children of anyone coming into this country illegally and otherwise is what this is about. That was never the intention of the original amendment.
Not that Trump gives a damn about the constitution, mind you.
depends...
the 14th amendment was NOT written with ILLEGALS in mind
why should someone break the law, (ILLEGALS) then have a baby, and that child BE REWARDED with citizenship?? in a logical world you don't reward an illegal action
There is a constitutional process to change amendments. You guys are supporting burning it. I never thought I'd see the day America sh*t all over its own founding, yet here we are.
the 14th amendment was NOT written with ILLEGALS in mind
why should someone break the law, (ILLEGALS) then have a baby, and that child BE REWARDED with citizenship?? in a logical world you don't reward an illegal action
People just seem to forget that little bit of information. I have absolutely ZERO issues with it being ended for children born to illegal aliens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
