One eo already struck down

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by royamcr

They largely aren't "sneaking" into the country. They are seeking asylum which is a legal process.. Since the process takes 5 to 10 years, people work, get married, or just fuck and make kids. You know living a normal life.

I hardly believe utilizing the manpower we have to find and deport kids of immigrants is our nations top priority. Surely there are some other issues to take care of. I imagine this could be just a political stunt to appease the racist magat base. The US does have a population replacement problem where in a lot of states more people are dying than being born. In recent 3 years mainly due to covid the US as a whole lost more people than were born.

Not true, they intentionally come to the U.S. to give birth to their baby. Then since the baby is a U.S. citizen they claim they have to stay with their baby. Then they send for the rest of the kids in the family.



The only non-citezens that should have the right to have their babies born here U.S. citizens are the the ones legally going through immigration process to be Naturalized citizens or those that were granted asylum to become U.S. citizens.


It may be the 14th isn't worded correctly, but Trumps Executive Order does bring the issue front and center.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by royamcr

It probably isn't ok for a mother to come across the border or travel via visa to have a baby here and automatically be a US citizen.

Well, if you think it "isn't ok" then you should want the issue to be clarified by SCOTUS.

I personally don't think the EO will be upheld. The last time SCOTUS opined on the issue of birthright citizenship was back in 1898 (US v. Wong Kim Ark). I doubt if they will overturn that decision.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Trump is just testing boundaries to see how far he can take things. A damn 7th grader (with a dictionary for some words) can easily interpret the 14th amendment because it is so clear and simple to understand.

Explain to us the clause " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in the context of the amendment.

Pay close attention to the speech by Senator Jacob Howard who is credited with working closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery. In the Senate, he also served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment.

SCOTUS will have to weigh in on the matter since it has never addressed the meaning with regards to illegal aliens.


*I appreciate your attendance at school today.



It's clear that the intent of the legislators was to give citizenship to former slaves and their progeny... not to migrant farm hands, chinese tourists or muslim anchor babies.

[HDGristle]

Show that whole transcript

[royamcr]

There are no official numbers on "birth tourism" but it is estimated that 36000 births a year in the US are from that. That is about 1% of all births per year. We are wasting how many resources on the 1%??? That is stupid and no business would ever focus their energy on 1% of cases. And the 1% aren't even defective in business terms. They are just brown and most will grow up to be productive citizens.

Don't we have much bigger things to work on that affect many millions of people? Healthcare, housing, homelessness, veterans, inflation, gas prices.... These issues are very hard, probably too hard for Trump, so he focuses on the lowest of the low hanging fruit to make it look like he is doing something.

[Budman]

You act as if we can only attack one problem at a time. IMO birthright citizenship should have ended years ago.

[HDGristle]

IMO it should be in place forever. Looks like we need to put it to a vote. Like on whether to amend the amendment, mebbe

[EdBeaver]

I got laid today. Maybe I created a new citizen! You fuckers should stop arguing and make some babies or at least do some sport fucking.

[winn dixie]

I do agree the amendment should be changed. But the eo was never gonna stand. In today's times changing or ratifying an amendment will be very hard. Lusty does have a point. It does get the discussion going.

[1blackman1]

The Supreme Court and nearly every appellate court has ruled that persons born in the IS are US citizens. There is no discussion. This is settled law. The language of the 14th amendment is clear. We are currently incapable of passing any amendments to the constitution.

[Lucas McCain]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

We are currently incapable of passing any amendments to the constitution.

Yeah. My initial thought was why didn't Trump just try to ratify the amendment. And then when I looked up the process that it would take to do so, my next thought was that sure the fuck is not possible in today's divisive political climate.

Trump threw a Hail Mary pass that will not be successfully caught by any court, but that makes more sense than just punting when you know you won't get the ball back... and yes, I admit I am already suffering from college football withdrawal; hence, the corny ass analogy. Haha

[offshoredrilling]

its child abuse for a free ride
go back with or without kid

or jail for life

[Lucas McCain]

As usual, some of you fellas tend to forget what the fucking topic of a thread is about. Hint: It is not about anyone's opinion about birthright citizenship. It is about Trump's EO to immediately squash it which is unconstitutional and why the judge had this to say:

"I’ve been on the bench for over four decades," Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said. "I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order."

Try to stay focused on the thread topic some of you. It's a pretty simple topic to discuss so need to complicate it. Basically, it's just about Trump's stupid old fat ass trying to bypass the constitution... AGAIN! LOL

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Budman

. IMO birthright citizenship should have ended years ago.

You know no one, particularly any judge, gives a fuck about your opinion.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The Supreme Court and nearly every appellate court has ruled that persons born in the IS (sic) are US citizens. There is no discussion. This is settled law. The language of the 14th amendment is clear.

Oh dear! Is "settled law" kinda like "settled science"? No discussion, folks! The matter is settled! End of story!

I love the way the libs always make fun of those old fogy conservative "originalists" and lecture everyone on how the Constitution needs to be constantly reinterpreted as a living, breathing document to keep up with the times. No need to take its language too literally or respect "stare decisis" when times and norms and attitudes keep changing.

But then, they fall back on the "settled law" argument whenever one of their sacred cows is threatened. Like abortion. Or birthright citizenship. The "settled law" argument isn't even a real argument - it's merely a refusal to entertain ANY arguments.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Way before anchor babies or birthright tourism erupted. So you can't tell me the authors of the 14th Amendment drafted it with an intent to open up the floodgates to those modern-day scourges.

As I pointed out, the last SCOTUS opinion on birthright citizenship was issued back in 1898. That was two years after Plessy v. Ferguson, a case that legalized racial segregation in this country until it was overturned 56 years later. So a curious law student might ask a simple question - what makes US v. Wong Kim Ark "settled law" while the Plessy v. Ferguson decision was reversible?

Of course, 1b1 will pretend he didn't read this comment since he has me on ignore. Truth is he can't answer my question in a logical or consistent way. He would rather just stamp out all discussion on this thread topic by deeming it "settled law" lol.