Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_subgenius]

Just as a frame of reference, check out the Snyder Act of 1924.... because while Native Americans were being born on American soil they had never been "interpreted" as being US citizens until this actual legislation was passed.

The sovereignty of Native American territory is the sticking point here. This is an assertion that Native Americans are on American soil and subject to American jurisdiction rather than foreigners who belong to foreign lands within the contiguous US borders. This is part of a series of acts by the United States diminishing Native sovereignty and, uh, creatively interpreting our treaty obligations.

Your powers of redundancy and irrelevance are admirable...tedious, but admirable.


The point is that the 14th birthright clause is "interpreted", and the Snyder Act "ruled" on that interpretation with regards to Native Americans; and Supreme Court ruled on that interpretation with regards to legal immigrants; and now we are on the cusp of a "ruling" with regards to Illegal Immigrants.

[_subgenius]

And Russians tourists who stay in Trump owned properties for the same purpose?

They will be given free bus rides to the polls by Democrats.

[_EAllusion]

You can read the debates yourself:

https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html

Both the proponents and the opponents of the amendment plainly think that it is intended to cover everyone born in the US regardless of immigration status. The critics argue that this will create citizens out of the children of groups they found undesirable to which the proponents say, yes, but that's a good thing.

[_EAllusion]

The Atlantic also has a piece up that explains it about as clearly as can be explained:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/574381/

This is basic civics.

[_canpakes]

Then Trump needs to go for it already. Go ahead and knock out that executive order, and let the courts fight over it. It’ll keep the xenophobic members of his Base occupied so that they don’t realize that their jobs are still miserable, their pay isn’t getting any better and their healthcare covers less and less each year while becoming more expensive along the way.

And in the end, Trump’s gambit will expire, and his Base will still lose because they got conned yet again.

didn't get conned on tax reform
or travel bans
or judge appointments
or Russia
or Govt de-regulation
or insurance mandates
or unemployment
or trade deals
or Israel
or Coal
or School choice programs

and
so
on..

I think you are insisting that people "realize" a reality that does not exist....so maybe the burden of "not-realizing" is actually on you.

Then you can tell me who is benefitting from these, and in what way, as relates to the sorts of folks who attend those rallies. ; )

[_EAllusion]

[


The point is that the 14th birthright clause is "interpreted", and the Snyder Act "ruled" on that interpretation with regards to Native Americans; and Supreme Court ruled on that interpretation with regards to legal immigrants; and now we are on the cusp of a "ruling" with regards to Illegal Immigrants.

That's not what the Synder act was doing at all. The Synder Act was clarifying the status of Native Americans within quasi-sovereign territories within the US that have a real argument to being independent nations. Sorting out the status of tribal nations with respect to federal and state law is not a demonstration of the uncertain citizenship status of people born in the United States.

Maybe read the wiki or something? I don't know.

"While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any person born in the U.S.A. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment has been interpreted that the Tribes are separate Nations to which an Indian owes allegiance and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I."

I linked a ruling specifically on illegal immigrants that was a 9-0 holding. So, objectively, that part of your argument is wrong. And I wouldn't need that ruling to know what is the correct view even if this wasn't the case.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Yes, but again, those are not ILLEGAL ALIENS. Those are legal immigrants. Nothing about this dialogue suggests that children of people who expressly broke immigration laws as set forth by Congress, as well as the states, and violated respective borders, should be treated as citizens.

I imagine that’s likely because prior to 1875 (after the 14th Amendment) there really wasn’t anything as far as immigration laws go. At the time, there were only some residency requirements for citizenship for those not born in the US.

I sincerely don’t see how any constitutional originalist can view this as not applying to those born to unlawful immigrants. Especially given the part of the debate wherein it was noted that those who are born to parents who are merely “subjects” of the US, receive citizenship. There were other parts wherein individuals were arguing that the Constitution didn’t need the amendment because the law had always been that you’re a citizen if you’re born here (if you were white, that is).

I don't know if it's bias, cognitive empathy issues, or some other shortcoming on my part, but I honestly have trouble seeing this as anything but "you're born here, congrats on your citizenship door prize." I know that there is another way of seeing it (as evidence by you, a few of my friends, etc.); I just can’t see it. I apologize, as I imagine it’s more than a little frustrating trying to dialogue with someone that simply can’t see the issue any other way.

If the standard is to be revised to reflect our current realities -- which, I think it probably should -- it would require in the least, an update to existing Statutes, and more likely a revision to the Clause.

by the way, I like your little monster figure, that's truly a nice touch :D

Thank you. The Rancor reminds me to take advantage of my midi-chlorians whilst questing for knowledge.

[_Analytics]

Trump aside, at the very least I think we should at least admit that the "Birthright Citizenship" clause has developed an unforeseen consequence in the "Birth Tourism" industry.

Fair enough. But if we don't like the Constitution, there is a process to change it.

Presidents who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution but then sign "executive orders" to invalidate the parts they don't like should be immediately impeached. Isn't that basic civics?

[_Res Ipsa]

Yes, but again, those are not ILLEGAL ALIENS. Those are legal immigrants. Nothing about this dialogue suggests that children of people who expressly broke immigration laws as set forth by Congress, as well as the states, and violated respective borders, should be treated as citizens.

You keep ignoring the relationship between an immigration law and the Constitution, and which prevails when there is a conflict. What all of this history says is that the children of people that we don't necessarily want here (just like illegal immigrants today) are citizens if they are born here. Period.

At the time the amendment was ratified, Congress had not passed a law that made it illegal for any class of persons to enter the U.S. with the intent of naturalizing and becoming a citizen. So, a baby born in the U.S. of two Mexican parents who had not yet become U.S. Citizens is guaranteed citizenship under the First Amendment. What you are proposing is that Congress can take that birthright citizenship away by passing a law that prohibits the parents from entering the U.S. But Congress cannot take away rights given by the Constitution. It's really not that hard.

[_Brackite]

Levin is a credible guy.

No he isn't. Mark Levin isn't a "credible" guy.

In August 2018, Levin stated that Mueller is a "greater threat to this Republic and Constitution than anything Vladimir Putin did during the [2016] campaign."[92][93]

Evolutionary biology

On April 29, 2018, Levin dedicated his weekly Fox News program to the thesis that evolutionary biology isn't a science, claiming that "this notion of Darwinism, atheism, really progressivism ... they really don't work with constitutionalism" adding that "Darwinianism ... leads to forms of tyranny, in my view".[94] Levin also attacked the validity of other sciences including political science, behavioral science and social science, bemoaning that they are "applied by the progressives, by the communists" and "had their birth out of, among others Darwinism". The following day on his radio show, Levin further clarified his position by remarking that "DNA is a science, evolution is not a science".[95]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin