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.
I wish I knew. It's not like the info isn't readily available. Given that, the only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that they're WILLFULLY ignorant. It's certainly baffling.
Chick is good with me, sorry about that, thought you were a guy.
Whether the law is being upheld correctly or not is for the courts.
It does not go from EO to SCOTUS. Not how it works.
If Obama's EOs were unconstitutional I would assume that was dealt with.
I don't care about Obama, it's not the current issue and I didn't vote for him.
I am a man but dude is offensive to me. Yes, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide and that's what we want. What part of that aren't you getting? We are just voicing our opinions on what we think they need to look at to decide just as your side is doing. Instead you get all defensive.
Implementing an EO is just to get the ball rolling as this has been stalled in congress for decades now. I'm not afraid when it gets to the Supreme Court for a ruling but your side seems to be which tells me all the arguments we have presented worries you. I've not read one valid reason by your side why birthright citizenship applies to children born from illegal aliens. You even ignore the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. Of course you don't want to talk about Obama's unconstitutional EO as if makes you all hypocrites for attacking Trump for his.
Could be. Still a good move by Trump because it justs one more part to the bigger picture that he is trying to solve our immigration problems and Dems are trying to block any solutions.
If we lose the birthright citizenship issue, there are other ways to remove the "anchor" from "anchor babies". Nothing in the Constitution that says we have to allow someone illegal to remain here no matter how many citizen kids they have. We could take the illegal parents into custody at the hospital and subject them to expedited removal. We could do away with family immigration petitions altogether since the vast majority of them come from recent immigrants. We could also deduct from a country's legal admission quota (including work visas) the number of illegal entries from there.
We could also amend the Constitution if it's ruled by the SC that children of illegal aliens are birthright citizens. Many countries have changed their policies on birthright citizenship to one parent has to be a citizen or both in order for their offspring to gain birthright citizenship. It would be a hard sell with the Democrats but is another possible solution.
I am a man but dude is offensive to me. Yes, it is up to the Supreme Court to decide and that's what we want. What part of that aren't you getting? We are just voicing our opinions on what we think they need to look at to decide just as your side is doing. Instead you get all defensive.
Implementing an EO is just to get the ball rolling as this has been stalled in congress for decades now. I'm not afraid when it gets to the Supreme Court for a ruling but your side seems to be which tells me all the arguments we have presented worries you. I've not read one valid reason by your side why birthright citizenship applies to children born from illegal aliens. You even ignore the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. Of course you don't want to talk about Obama's unconstitutional EO as if makes you all hypocrites for attacking Trump for his.
Implementing an obviously unconstitutional Executive Order is not the appropriate way to "get the ball rolling." If the executive wants to try to compel the legislature to implement policy, there are a proper ways to get that process started. I doubt you would think it would be appropriate for Barack Obama to issue an executive order declaring that "arms" is limited to muskets and then laughed at you, stating, "I knew it was totally unconstitutional when I issued the Executive Order, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling on a gun control debate!"
Executive Orders are designed to allow the executive branch to implement established legislation. The issuance of an Executive Order concerning the 14th Amendment would have consequences ranging from the functioning of multiple administrative agencies all the way down whether that hard-working, green-card holding family decides to try for that daughter they always wanted. The issuance of an Executive Order is not like ordering a coffee at your local Starbucks, to be used flippantly in order to "spark a debate".
I'm sorry, but my view of how the Executive branch should function is not "they should throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall just to see if it sticks." We can, and should, strive for better.
I wish I knew. It's not like the info isn't readily available. Given that, the only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that they're WILLFULLY ignorant. It's certainly baffling.
I don't think that's actually it for most of them. They are just so stuck on their agendas and idealogies that even when the truth slaps them right in the face they just ignore it because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Actually, they have. Elk v. Wilkins. No 14th Amendment birthright citizenship due to owing allegiance to other than the US at birth.
Why do you continue to repeat something that is absolutely incorrect?
"Writing for the majority, Justice Horace Gray said Elk had no claim to citizenship because he had never been naturalized as an American citizen through a treaty or statute. Even though he was born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to Elk, Gray said, because Elk was born as a subject of an Indian nation that was an alien power." https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ians-cant-vote
In other words, when Elk was born he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Your statement is too vague, immune to what? What do you mean, precisely?
As the drafters of the 14th Amendment expressly stated, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States means that they are subject to the enforcement of US laws and the within the reach of US Courts. Sen. Williams at the time put it very simply, stating that it meant that one could be "brought, by proper process, within the reach and power of the court." The other Senators unanimously agreed, concurring that "subject to the jurisdiction" referred to persons who were required to abide by US civil and criminal laws and capable of being brought before the US judiciary.
At the time, the drafters expressly noted that they one "could not sue a Navajo" because they were only "subject for crimes committed against the laws and usages of the tribe itself, and not any foreign power" which meant "the United States courts have no power to punish" them, thus putting them outside of US jurisdiction.
In light of that definition, which was not only understood by the drafters of the 14th Amendment but also is the common definition of jurisdiction (the territorial area over which there is legal and other authority, according to Oxford English Dictionary), the question was inquiring as to what way illegal immigrants are less "subject to US jurisdiction" than legal immigrants or US citizens. In other words, is there some civil or criminal law from which illegal immigrants (but not legal immigrants) are immune? Are illegal citizens less subject to being hauled into Court than legal immigrants or citizens?
Why do you continue to repeat something that is absolutely incorrect?
Because it's not incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
Quote:
"Writing for the majority, Justice Horace Gray said Elk had no claim to citizenship because he had never been naturalized as an American citizen through a treaty or statute. Even though he was born within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the 14th Amendment didn’t apply to Elk, Gray said, because Elk was born as a subject of an Indian nation that was an alien power." https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/...ians-cant-vote
Illegal aliens' children are born as subjects/citizens of their parents' respective country. For example, it matters not if a Mexican citizen illegal alien's child is born in the US. They are born a Mexican citizen, with Mexico being an alien power.
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.
Given that, the only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that they're WILLFULLY ignorant. It's certainly baffling. 
