Trump Vows to End Birthright Citizenship

Interesting you say that because the fourteenth amendment from 134 years ago is what liberals are using to give illegals kids citizenship

 

The parents will be deported but the child can't since the child would a citizen. You would be creating a glut of orphans and a burden to the state.

 

There is no such implications. The language is clear and in no way does it have an impact on parental rights.

 

Good luck with that idea

Drop us a note from jail when you get settled in

 

We also have quite the border issue with Canada too. Goes way back. They settled it better, but there are still issues....

 

As is with the 14th amendment. Trump can't write and EO to contradict it, or make it disappears.

 

Another Dirty Donald vow that's about as serious as his marriage vows???Another Dirty Donald joke.

 

From the author of the 14th amendment, Jacob Howard:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

 

And yet another person coming in and asking us to ignore the later half of this sentence. Bolding your favorite words isn't going to change the meaning. He's talking about those foreigners "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." Which gives us a pretty good indicator of what he meant by "subject to the jurisdiction."

 

LOL You talked about how Obama was 100% within his right, now the President can't be an executive anymore..?

 

No this isn't judicial activism. Judicial activism is when a judge overrules a law passed by Congress and signed in by the President. It's one branch of government overriding the other 2.

The President is not a part of the judiciary. If he institutes an executive order, that's not judicial activism, that's a Presidential privilege.

 

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. ...

And I didn't say the President issuing an executive order was judicial activism. The courts attempting to overturn the Constitution's clear statement on " birthright citizenship" would be judicial activism unless the court in question was the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]

 

Lindsey Graham will always give a full-throated voice supporting something that he knows damned well doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming something real. He's a gutless, attention-seeking wannabe something.

 

[/QUOTE]
Lame. Just admit it: Your definition of judicial activism is anytime a court rules something you disagree with.

 

He's a mental midget that's has a yellow streak down his back. I've known all about Trump for the past 40 years, you people in the rest of the country haven't been subjected to his BS your entire lives as I have been. That's why you fell for his BS, you just didn't know any better. He's the P.T. Barnum of the 21st Century, a 'showman' and jokester. He would do very well doing a stand up comedy act in the Catskills.

 

Just an example of how gutless he really is, he went to Flint, Michigan during his campaign, and we all know the troubles with lead in their drinking water they've been having. Trump immediately started to trash Hillary Clinton and the Black female Pastor had invited him to speak about the Flint troubles and to give them some hope that he would fix it if he was elected.

The Pastor interrupted him and he nearly cowered being warned by a Black woman on how to behave. He finally got on track and stopped playing the blame game. And guess what? Here it is nearly 3 years later and he still hasn't done a damned thing for Flint, Michigan.

 

I believe that you are wrong about that. It is insane to say that its not a problem to have illegals come in to squeeze out a baby, and place Americans on the hook to support them as a backdoor loophole to citizenship.

If this were the original intention then why for a hundred years following ratification was this not the case?

 

Lame. Just admit it: Your definition of judicial activism is anytime a court rules something you disagree with.[/QUOTE]

Sorry but not my definition. Here is another version


Judicial Activism - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes - LegalDictionary.net
LegalDictionary.net › judicial-activism
Judicial activism is a legal term that refers to court rulings that are partially or fully based on the judge's political or personal considerations, rather than existing laws.

That is the definition. Here is your totally bogus attempt at making one up. And I quote from your post:

" No this isn't judicial activism. Judicial activism is when a judge overrules a law passed by Congress and signed in by the President. It's one branch of government overriding the other "

 

No but he can write an executive order that would immediately be challenged in the supreme court.

You should reread the 14th amendment and learn what jurisdiction thereof means.

 

Backdoor loophole to citizenship? If you are talking about so-called "anchor babies," those are mostly a myth. Having a child who is a citizen does not give you guaranteed protection against deportation and the child can't sponsor you for a green card for 30 or so years. Even then, the no-longer-a-child would have to be wealthy enough to support you as a dependent, and it isn't a sure thing. The parent would have to leave the US in the meantime, and they would be penalized during their interview process if it was was uncovered that they had ever entered the US illegally. As backdoors go, that's a piss-poor example.

As for the original intention, the original intention was to grant birthright citizenship, except in cases such as the child of a diplomat/ambassador. For most of the "hundred years" you are talking about, there were very few immigration restrictions. We had nearly open borders. Of course it took a long time for a court case to come up involving illegal immigrants and the citizenship of their child.

 

It's what America is doing to follow the constitution.

And, Republicans are free to lobby for their partisan views on how the constitution should be amended in their objective of maintaining a white majority.

 

Illegals cannot be citizens ! The process is you need to be a legal resident, then you wait 5 years, then you apply, they your background is checked and you better not have any felonies or serious midomeaners.
So is there any case law that said that an illegal can go from an illegal status to citizen? There better not be.

You also mentioned same standing. What standing regarding what. Again illegal aliens better not be allowed to become citizens.

Are you sure that the footnote is not talking about children of illegals?
Anyways the law as stands under the 14th amendment needs to be ckarrifued so that children of illegals or anchor tourist are not given citizenship. The 14th does not govern the status of the illegal it does the children of illegals and children of tourists' anchor babies.

That is where this needs to be focused.

 

I thought so until Kavanaugh who said that a sitting POTUS should be be indicted or questioned. He is scary. I do not care if he tried to get a little P when he was drunk and 17, but I care that he as an adult thinks that this POTUS is above the law.

 

If we did not absorb Texas, win CA, AZ, NM, NEVADA, COLORADO, most of Utah, parts of Montana, Oregon, and maybe parts of Nebraska we would be seriously screwed because the traitorous South would have broken away and Mexico would have had most of the enchilada.

Not a good thought.

 

Democrats spent decades screwing Flint up, it'll take a while to fix it.