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

[TemplarKormac]

Naturally you revert back to the "stolen land" argument.

But hey, the land is ours now. You can't turn back time now, can you? Planning on living abroad anytime soon?

 

[Orangecat]

The Constitution supports it, and it seems to me that it has been working out pretty well. Babies being born in the US are hardly the crux of our immigration problems. If the government does its job and controls the border, this would be a non-issue. When media reports reference 10 million illegals or whatever the number, they are not talking about 10 million babies.

I didn’t ask what you think the Constitution says, I asked for your opinion. Why are you having such a problem with it? Weird.

 

[Wapasha]

First, the Constitution. Read it.

Next this:

Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders

www.law.cornell.edu

There is no exemption for the president.

You're welcome. I hope you weren't holding your breath.

You are not addressing nation-wide universal injunctions, like those we are discussing in this thread. We are referring to these universal injunctions which started appearing in 1963.

You are referring to where one party is asking for an injunction against another party. In those circumstances the party asking for the injunction also posts a bond, to protect the "enjoined party," to cover any material costs associated with wrongful damages. and the injunction only affect the two people involved, not the entire nation.

The differences today and in the past:

Today
No defined group of people the plaintiff claims to represent are identified (rule 23)
Bond postings non-existent (Required under Rule 65(c))
Injunctions are applied across the entire country, not just the person or party asking for the injunction

The way it is supposed to be done according to Rule 65(c)
Class, plaintiff, groups identified
Bond Posted for Injunction
The Injunction does not apply to nonparties, and certainly not the entire nation

Rule 65(c) is being abused by these rogue district court judges. One person cannot complain to a sympathetic judge in a different state, and get the judge to impose a universal injunction across the entire nation to prevent a president from executing his constitutionally authorized policies. There is no law that authorizes it, and Rule 65 is not it either.

 

[MayorQuimby]

I didn’t ask what you think the Constitution says, I asked for your opinion. Why are you having such a problem with it? Weird.

He pretends he doesn't understand because he's dishonest.

 

[WEATHER53]

Citizen and person were synonymous terms at the time of the writing . Since there is no addressing of foreign land invaders then they don’t qualify for the benefits thereof

 

[Foxfyre]

Naturally you revert back to the "stolen land" argument.

But hey, the land is ours now. You can't turn back time now, can you? Planning on living abroad anytime soon?

Not only that but the peoples deemed indigenous now because they were here when the first European settlers arrived were not the first humans to have occupied our land either. The historical/archealogical/paleontological record is complex and goes back many many millenia. Here in North America, it is believed humankind has been here for at least 20,000 or more years.

And humankind being warlike in nature until tamed somewhat by JudeoChristianity and perhaps some other factors, it is pretty certain than some of those groups did battle with other groups in order to take dominion over the lands they wanted.

To assume all occupying groups except for white Europeans and Jews are entitled to the lands they occupy is to deny the history of the world.

 

[MayorQuimby]

People who say things like how Americans deserve to have their country invaded just because technically their ancestors invaded the original people, are stupid, for the very simple reason that two wrongs don't make a right. It is never OK for present-day America to be invaded for any reason at all, no matter what previous generations of Americans did.

 

[Crepitus]

That will be irrelevant. Individual states dont get to decide whether an individual regardless of where they are born is a US citizen or not those criteria are set by the Federal Government. States should be allowed to set criteria for citizenship of their state though.

That's the dumbest thing I have heard here in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

 

[Crepitus]

Yeah that's exactly what I just said.

LOL, no. It's not.

 

[Crepitus]

Are you calling them liberal because they have birthright citizenship?

Besides, we are an exceptional country, remember?



The EO will definitely fall. As it should.

Not looking so good right now...

 

[Shamrock17]

Only a handful of far-left countries allow birthright citizenship.

That being said, the wording of our constitution seems pretty strong here and unfortunately, I think this one will lose. I would be pleasantly surprised if it won.

It did lose. This one will, as you said above, stand.
Time for congress to take it up.

 

[BackAgain]

The speculation here is largely uninformed.

Attorney breaks down SCOTUS arguments on birthright citizenship | Fox News Video

Attorney Todd Shapiro discusses the Supreme Court hearing arguments on birthright citizenship on 'The Will Cain Show.'

www.foxnews.com

I wonder if folks who still believe (I say mistakenly believe) that there is no valid reason to reassess the actual meaning and purpose of the argued “birthright” [sic] citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment will ever comprehend that there are sound arguments against their position.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No, the government does not do this. The benefits an illegal can receive is very limited. The government does NOT provide housing to someone here illegally, child or not.

"A child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The birth certificate issued by the hospital and state is all that’s required to prove it — regardless of the parent’s legal status. That documentation is then used by the parent to apply for public benefits on behalf of the child."

Furthermore:

• Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing assistance (like Section 8 or public housing).
• But U.S.-born children who are citizens can qualify for:
  • Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)
  • Public housing programs

So no, the parents don't come to the U.S. with the aim of having their U.S. born child apply for them to become U.S. citizens some 21 years in the future. They give birth here because their U.S. born child grants them access to immediately benefits for that child, which they (usually the mother) receive and administer.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I didn't know that the government did that. But I suppose it makes sense, the baby is technically American, her needs need to be taken care of.

My understanding is that illegals have a child on American soil, because they know that this now means they won't be deported back, because white people would not separate a child from her parents like that. White people are soft like that, illegals have been told this when they were still in Mexico. By the various CIA agents covertly working in their country, I bet.

It is not true that the parents cannot be deported just because they have a U.S. born child, the laws just haven't been being enforced at lot. Then there is the whole dilemma of the child not being deported because it's a U.S. citizen and the dilemma of breaking up families, etc.

 

[Couchpotato]

LOL, no. It's not.

You clearly have a reading comprehension issue

 

[pknopp]

Only a handful of far-left countries allow birthright citizenship.

That being said, the wording of our constitution seems pretty strong here and unfortunately, I think this one will lose. I would be pleasantly surprised if it won.

If the law is clear why would you be pleased if the court ignored that?

"A child born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The birth certificate issued by the hospital and state is all that’s required to prove it — regardless of the parent’s legal status. That documentation is then used by the parent to apply for public benefits on behalf of the child."

Furthermore:

• Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal housing assistance (like Section 8 or public housing).
• But U.S.-born children who are citizens canqualify for:
  • Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)
  • Public housing programs

So no, the parents don't come to the U.S. with the aim of having their U.S. born child apply for them to become U.S. citizens some 21 years in the future. They give birth here because their U.S. born child grants them access to immediately benefits for that child, which they (usually the mother) receive and administer.

Illegals do not get housing or anything else.

 

[Zincwarrior]

??????????????
What the hell does that mean?

I look forward to Marco Rubio being deported as an illegal alien.
. Were Trump's parents sworn in?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Why? Because the 14th is clear. If you were born here and your parents aren't diplomats, you are a citizen.

I don't support the court twisting that because you have bought the lies.

The 14th is clear on a lot of other things as well that were dutifully ignored for a 100+ years.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The 14th is clear on a lot of other things as well that were dutifully ignored for a 100+ years.

Yup..things like "Equal Protection Under the Law" for example~

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Only a handful of far-left countries allow birthright citizenship.

That being said, the wording of our constitution seems pretty strong here and unfortunately, I think this one will lose. I would be pleasantly surprised if it won.

So when SCOTUS hears something that deals with a constitutional amendment, all of the case law that supports the current interpretation of the amendment is irrelevant? I'm asking if they take it into consideration at all?