One Of Trump's Unconstitutional EOs Is Being Raked Over the Coals By SCOTUS Tomorrow

[MayorQuimby]

So they came up with a term to describe something? Cool. What exactly is your point? Or is this just another instance where you don't have one?

This post is pure dominance.

Read the thread jackass

Tears.

Irrelevant if it is or not. If you believe it isnt, work to pass an amendment.

He did not ask you what to do. He asked you what benefit birthright citizenship has for your country. Of course, you couldn't answer this question.

Are you calling them liberal because they have birthright citizenship?

No.

He is saying that birthright citizenship is stupid and crazy, and the countries who have it, tend to be liberal. And this happens because liberalism leads to stupid and crazy.

It's not an "assumption," it is reality. A baby is being born somewhere in America right now. That baby is a US citizen regardless of the immigration status of his parents. That is a fact, and it will not change no matter what the Supreme Court decides. If the Constitution is changed, that might affect subsequent births, but that baby being born today will still be a citizen, same as you or me.

This is true, but I don't understand why you and people like you kind of just sit back and be all like, "Yep, yep, that's just how it is", like this is a neutral thing that just happens and it's perfectly normal to accept it. You should be outraged and incensed that illegals used a technicality like this, to unethically obtain citizenship for their children.

Sometimes I really suspect that you people secretly delight in that citizenship is being handed out to illegals' children like candy.

 

[Billiejeens]

Well, we know how Alito and Thomas will vote

Because they are Constitutionalists

 

[Billiejeens]

This post is pure dominance.

Tears.

He did not ask you what to do. He asked you what benefit birthright citizenship has for your country. Of course, you couldn't answer this question.

No.

He is saying that birthright citizenship is stupid and crazy, and the countries who have it, tend to be liberal. And this happens because liberalism leads to stupid and crazy.



This is true, but I don't understand why you and people like you kind of just sit back and be all like, "Yep, yep, that's just how it is", like this is a neutral thing that just happens and it's perfectly normal to accept it. You should be outraged and incensed that illegals used a technicality like this, to unethically obtain citizenship for their children.

Sometimes I really suspect that you people secretly delight in that citizenship is being handed out to illegals' children like candy.

I don't see it as a secret

 

[g5000]

Here is the deep Constitutional analysis the brainiacs at Fox News have been able to bring to bear thus far:

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts reins in Sotomayor after repeated interruptions​

 

[rightwinger]

Because they are Constitutionalists

Does that mean they read the 14th amendment?

 

[SweetTea]

They have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws and EOs.

For centuries now.

Do try to catch up and stop listening to your lying, uneducated propagandists. You look stupid.

Oh, by the way. Were the Supremes "activist judges" when they repealed Roe V. Wade?

You really don't think this shit through, do you, moron.

Roe v Wade was unconstitutional. It was turned over to the states where it should have been all along.

14th amendment has been misinterpreted for too many years now. It's time for that to change.

What specifically has Trump ordered that is unconstitutional? Most certainly not the removal of criminal illegal immigrants.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trump has put on a lot of theater for the rubes.

A lot.

One of those performances is EO 14160.

To satisfy the large crowd of bigots in the MAGA ranks, Trump signed an Executive Order on the proverbial Day One of his administration which unconstitutionally violated the 14th Amendment. Having never read the Constitution due to its big words, Trump thought he could get away with it.

So far, every court up the chain of command has slapped Trump's, Nazi Stephen Miller's, and third stringer traitor John Eastman's pointy heads down, and tomorrow the Supreme Court will do the same.

Enter your predictions here for what the score will be when the EO is struck down.

I predict 9-0 against the illegal, unconstitutional, bigoted, hateful EO.

You can listen to the sure-to-be-hilarious arguments tomorrow here:

LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s challenge to birthright citizenship

Birthright citizenship is among several issues the administration has asked the court to deal with on an emergency basis, after lower courts acted to slow Trump’s agenda.

www.pbs.org

Trump's EO is fully in line with the Founder's intent.

What is your motivation to wanting any child born here to be a citizen. Children born to ambassadors, visiting dignitaries or people here on temporary visas are not automatic citizens. Why should children of persons entering the country illegally or otherwise without invitation or proper documentation be citizens?

Why do you want to continue that when all countries in Europe Asia and Australia reject it?

 

[MayorQuimby]

Trump's EO is fully in line with the Founder's intent.

What is your motivation to wanting any child born here to be a citizen. Children born to ambassadors, visiting dignitaries or people here on temporary visas are not automatic citizens. Why should children of persons entering the country illegally or otherwise without invitation or proper documentation be citizens?

I think you touched upon an excellent point.

This isn't just about the letters of the law, rather, it has to do with the spirit of the law. Yes, according to the letters of the law, illegals' children are citizens. However, this goes completely against the spirit of what the law is, and what it means to be a citizen, and who should be a citizen.

It is easy enough to say, "Children who are born on American soil are citizens". Anybody can say that. But it is never just about where one is born. We need to take into account the manner by which this child obtains her citizenship, and we will discover that it is highly unethical and questionable, which should really bother anyone who has integrity and who can tell when people did something wrong.

 

[Billiejeens]

Does that mean they read the 14th amendment?

As originally intended

 

[Unkotare]

You may not know what literally means.

I know, thanks.

 

[Unkotare]

... Our national policy has 100% been we wont deport the parent of a child who is a citizen. ...

That is false. It happens all the time.

 

[Unkotare]

Always done what? Deport illegal immigrant parents of children who are US citizens? No we have not.

Yes, we have and we do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LOL As I figured, you cannot find it. There is no basis in federal law for these universal injunctions. No, they are not in the Constitution.

You linking to the constitution and pretending it contains the answer you are looking for?? How lame. What's next? You going to link to Google and pretend the answer you are looking for is there?

The right's unwarranted opposition to universal injunctions is yet another example of conservatives' contempt for the Constitution and rule of law.

 

[g5000]

Trump's EO is fully in line with the Founder's intent.

It is in line with the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision has upheld birthright citizenship.

What is your motivation to wanting any child born here to be a citizen.

Because we are an exceptional country.

Children born to ambassadors, visiting dignitaries or people here on temporary visas are not automatic citizens.

And that is precisely what the 14th Amendment says, except for you part about visas.

These exceptions are for reasons which don't appear to be obvious to you.

Why should children of persons entering the country illegally or otherwise without invitation or proper documentation be citizens?

Why do you want to continue that when all countries in Europe Asia and Australia reject it?

Wait.

Are you saying we should be like other countries when it suits you, and not like other countries when it doesn't suit you, hypocrite?

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you touched upon an excellent point.

This isn't just about the letters of the law, rather, it has to do with the spirit of the law. Yes, according to the letters of the law, illegals' children are citizens. However, this goes completely against the spirit of what the law is, and what it means to be a citizen, and who should be a citizen.

It is easy enough to say, "Children who are born on American soil are citizens". Anybody can say that. But it is never just about where one is born. We need to take into account the manner by which this child obtains her citizenship, and we will discover that it is highly unethical and questionable, which should really bother anyone who has integrity and who can tell when people did something wrong.

Excellent legal minds have proposed that even the 'letter of the law' re the Constitution does not support granting citizenship to those who are here on valid business, here visiting, or here illegally. The clause ''. . .and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . ." in the 14th Amendment is what SCOTUS will be addressing. The purpose was to grant full citizenship to all former slaves which, by 1868, pretty much all had been born in the USA and therefore had no 'home country' to return to. Few if any knew any family or even where their ancestors had lived in Africa. All were Americans under the jurisdiction of the USA.

According to those legal minds, the intent of the 14th Amendment was that citizens of other countries are not under the jurisdiction of the USA. They are under the jurisdiction of whatever countries they are citizens of. We will see if SCOTUS concurs.

 

[Billiejeens]

I know, thanks.

You don't

 

[g5000]

I think you touched upon an excellent point.

This isn't just about the letters of the law, rather, it has to do with the spirit of the law. Yes, according to the letters of the law, illegals' children are citizens. However, this goes completely against the spirit of what the law is, and what it means to be a citizen, and who should be a citizen.

It is easy enough to say, "Children who are born on American soil are citizens". Anybody can say that. But it is never just about where one is born. We need to take into account the manner by which this child obtains her citizenship, and we will discover that it is highly unethical and questionable, which should really bother anyone who has integrity and who can tell when people did something wrong.

Incorrect. There are no restrictions on birthright citizenship except for the children of ambassadors.

I have provided the statements of the authors themselves many times on this forum, and if necessary, will do so again.

 

[Unkotare]

The term anchor baby didn't manifest out of thin air. ...

It manifested out of the imagination of "ew, I don't like them furunurs!" people.

 

[Billiejeens]

Excellent legal minds have proposed that even the 'letter of the law' re the Constitution does not support granting citizenship to those who are here on valid business, here visiting, or here illegally. The clause ''. . .and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . ." in the 14th Amendment is what SCOTUS will be addressing. The purpose was to grant full citizenship to all former slaves which, by 1868, pretty much all had been born in the USA and therefore had no 'home country' to return to. Few if any knew any family or even where their ancestors had lived in Africa. All were Americans under the jurisdiction of the USA.

According to those legal minds, citizens of other countries are not under the jurisdiction of the USA. They are under the jurisdiction of whatever countries they are citizens of. We will see if SCOTUS concurs.

We are a long way to that decision
The current case is procedural only.

 

[g5000]

Excellent legal minds

You mean Fox News?

have proposed that even the 'letter of the law' re the Constitution does not support granting citizenship to those who are here on valid business, here visiting, or here illegally. The clause ''. . .and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . ." in the 14th Amendment is what SCOTUS will be addressing.

You clearly don't know what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

Why do you think they had to carve out ambassadors?

EVERYONE on our soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States except those with diplomatic immunity.

Which, by the way, also means they have Fifth Amendment protections, vis a vis due process.

According to those legal minds

You're cracking me up.