Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[JoeB131]

LOL. So if they snuck in, in violation of the law they would be welcomed with opened arms, huh?

Pretty much. Here's what happened to Chinese immigrants back in the oldy days. They moved into one of the Chinatowns across the country, and just blended in. How do you think they were able to maintain themselves after the Chinese Exclusion Act, or even the Page Act forbade the importation of Chinese women?

Did you expect him to deny the TRO?

I expect him to uphold the constitution. But if you read his decision, he was outright mocking the lawyers. He questioned their intelligence and knowledge of the law.

They don't get to decide that. They came here illegally, they pay the price.

Okay, as soon as

except for that pesky under the jurisdiction thereof part.

when the question was last asked in 1898 immigration laws were limited.

But the constitution is still clearly written.

No, if the parents broke the law and are here illegally, they get deported. It will be their choice whether to take any anchor babies with them or leave them here, under foster care.

I imagine someone like you saying that about Jews in the 1930's

 

[martybegan]

Pretty much. Here's what happened to Chinese immigrants back in the oldy days. They moved into one of the Chinatowns across the country, and just blended in. How do you think they were able to maintain themselves after the Chinese Exclusion Act, or even the Page Act forbade the importation of Chinese women?



I expect him to uphold the constitution. But if you read his decision, he was outright mocking the lawyers. He questioned their intelligence and knowledge of the law.



Okay, as soon as



But the constitution is still clearly written.


I imagine someone like you saying that about Jews in the 1930's

This coming from a man who thinks it's a terrible document written by miserable people.

You can't hide behind it and pretend it doesn't matter, that's hypocrisy, but of course a sociopath like you doesn't care about that.

Or can even comprehend it.

 

[JoeB131]

This coming from a man who thinks it's a terrible document written by miserable people.

You can't hide behind it and pretend it doesn't matter, that's hypocrisy, but of course a sociopath like you doesn't care about that.

Or can even comprehend it.

Oh, the constitution has a LOT of problems, and the Framers were truly awful people. (Not that it matters about the 14th, because it was an amendment trying to fix their fuckups of allowing slavery to exist to start with.)

You see, if the Framers weren't awful people, they'd have said, "Hey, guys, you know, we can't go around saying, 'all men are created equal' and then keep raping out slaves!"

Instead, they left that shit in there, then they wrote amendments to fix it, but since there were still too many awful people, even that didn't entirely fix the problem.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, the constitution has a LOT of problems, and the Framers were truly awful people. (Not that it matters about the 14th, because it was an amendment trying to fix their fuckups of allowing slavery to exist to start with.)

You see, if the Framers weren't awful people, they'd have said, "Hey, guys, you know, we can't go around saying, 'all men are created equal' and then keep raping out slaves!"

Instead, they left that shit in there, then they wrote amendments to fix it, but since there were still too many awful people, even that didn't entirely fix the problem.

They were better than most people at the time, but somehow you think applying modern morals to them makes them bad people automatically. It's a stupid way to look at things.

So lets have a Constitutional Convention. I doubt you would like the results of one.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They were better than most people at the time, but somehow you think applying modern morals to them makes them bad people automatically. It's a stupid way to look at things.

So lets have a Constitutional Convention. I doubt you would like the results of one.

Honestly Marty, a Convention is a scary thought. Once convened there are no limitation on what they might recommend. There cannot be a "pre-conditions" or "limitations" on such a convention.

It could very well put gun control and abortion on the table.

It's old addage, watch what you ask for.

WW

 

[martybegan]

Honestly Marty, a Convention is a scary thought. Once convened there are no limitation on what they might recommend. There cannot be a "pre-conditions" or "limitations" on such a convention.

It could very well put gun control and abortion on the table.

It's old addage, watch what you ask for.

WW

Good.

3/4 of the States have to approve of any amendment. That's a high bar to clear.

Sometimes we need a shock to the system, and the system allows for this.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

You are a useless hack. nothing you post has any import or gravitas.

Thank you.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

They were better than most people at the time, but somehow you think applying modern morals to them makes them bad people automatically. It's a stupid way to look at things.

So lets have a Constitutional Convention. I doubt you would like the results of one.

I think it's a good bet it would reject MAGAssdom without any problem.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

America doesn't gain from unfettered and uncontrolled immigration. That he was elected proves the people here believe that.

Polls reveal that a majority of Americans support mass deportation of immigrants living in the country illegally. For example, a Scripps News/Ipsos survey found that 54% of Americans, including 86% of Republicans, 58% of independents, and 25% of Democrats, support a wide-scale effort to deport millions of immigrants. Another poll by Axios/Ipsos revealed that 66% of Americans, including 93% of Republicans and 43% of Democrats, support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally2. However, support for specific deportation policies, such as using active-duty military to find undocumented immigrants or separating families, is much lower.

Polls were conducted by thehill.com and axios and others.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Good.

3/4 of the States have to approve of any amendment. That's a high bar to clear.

Sometimes we need a shock to the system, and the system allows for this.

Oh I agree, but some (not saying you) are under the impression that Constitutional Conventions can be limited to their desired purpose. Which isn't really the case.

WW

 

[martybegan]

I think it's a good bet it would reject MAGAssdom without any problem.

it's 3/4 of the States to pass amendments. I think most States would vote in things the right likes over things the left likes. '

 

[martybegan]

Polls reveal that a majority of Americans support mass deportation of immigrants living in the country illegally. For example, a Scripps News/Ipsos survey found that 54% of Americans, including 86% of Republicans, 58% of independents, and 25% of Democrats, support a wide-scale effort to deport millions of immigrants. Another poll by Axios/Ipsos revealed that 66% of Americans, including 93% of Republicans and 43% of Democrats, support deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally2. However, support for specific deportation policies, such as using active-duty military to find undocumented immigrants or separating families, is much lower.

Polls were conducted by thehill.com and axios and others.

The only poll that counts voted Trump into office, and he's doing what he said he was going to do.

 

[martybegan]

Oh I agree, but some (not saying you) are under the impression that Constitutional Conventions can be limited to their desired purpose. Which isn't really the case.

WW

It's created by 2/3 of the States voting for it, and amendments have to pass with 3/4 of the States.

All it really does is change WHERE the amendments come from, not how they are passed.

I say bring it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

it's 3/4 of the States to pass amendments. I think most States would vote in things the right likes over things the left likes. '

Probably neither.

 

[ThisIsMe]

... which means I doubt they are going to consult us.

I doubt you and I are anywhere on their radar, as far as seeking opinions.

 

[Lisa558]

it's 3/4 of the States to pass amendments. I think most States would vote in things the right likes over things the left likes. '

Especially since there are more red states than blue.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, they f-ed up the wording by not mentioning them. They also did not mention native Americans except in the part about "subject to the jurisdiction" because at the time they were not. They were subject to their own nations.

Again, the debates they had explain all of that.

 

[martybegan]

Especially since there are more red states than blue.

They keep forgetting that.

 

[Lisa558]

They keep forgetting that.

They keep forgetting that we voted down what they are still clamoring for, too.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Especially since there are more red states than blue.

Hardly.