b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Trump eyeing executive order to end citizenship for children of noncitizens born on U.S. soilhttps://wapo.st/2qi5o59 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 lol, be fun to see him try it i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Anything that further illustrates the utter uselessness of a document written nearly 250 years ago and leads to its irrelevance is fine with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 "Pst, look over here and don't pay attention to the right-wing violence." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 I've argued here before that the 14th Amendment doesn't actually provide for birthright citizenship. One of the biggest arguments against the interpretation that the 14th Amendment does that, is the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The act gave citizenship rights to Native Americans for the first time. That being said, if Trump were to go through with an Executive Order, it would likely be unpopular among a majority of voters, and would further invigorate the left to vote against the GOP next week and in 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, PaladinSolo said: lol, be fun to see him try it i guess. You that confident in the current Supreme Court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: You that confident in the current Supreme Court? Yup, also confident this never happens. This is purely mid term shit throwing at the wall and seeing what sticks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slug Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 "“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen..." Uh...no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 I don't think Robert's would go along with this, but if they get one more this exactly the type of previously unthinkable ground that we'll be fighting on. Everyone bitching about Manchin or Menendez needs to ask themselves who they want voting on Ginsberg's replacement in 2019. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 39 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: I've argued here before that the 14th Amendment doesn't actually provide for birthright citizenship. One of the biggest arguments against the interpretation that the 14th Amendment does that, is the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. The act gave citizenship rights to Native Americans for the first time. That being said, if Trump were to go through with an Executive Order, it would likely be unpopular among a majority of voters, and would further invigorate the left to vote against the GOP next week and in 2020. Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations. Big difference. The 14th amendment is quite clear, if born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction there of, you're a citizen. How can someone born in the US not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics "Originalists" are going to use to deny the words that are written on the fucking paper. It's going to make the ludicrous reasoning used to justify Roe v. Wade seem positively sound in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBladeRoden Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: How can someone born in the US not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US? If a pregnant diplomat gives birth in the US, does the baby get diplomatic immunity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 We need to give the executive branch more power 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics "Originalists" are going to use to deny the words that are written on the fucking paper. It's going to make the ludicrous reasoning used to justify Roe v. Wade seem positively sound in comparison. If the militia clause means absolutely nothing, then I am sure they'll get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 19 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations. Big difference. The 14th amendment is quite clear, if born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction there of, you're a citizen. How can someone born in the US not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Yes, Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations. It's the "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that gives the anti-birthright people traction. The kiddos born here are citizens of their parent's country, therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Yes, Indian lands are supposedly sovereign nations. It's the "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that gives the anti-birthright people traction. The kiddos born here are citizens of their parent's country, therefore, they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If you are in the US you are subject to US jurisdiction, not to any other State otherwise the laws of other States can be enforced in the US Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimpleG Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 13 minutes ago, TheBladeRoden said: If a pregnant diplomat gives birth in the US, does the baby get diplomatic immunity? The immunity is given by default as it extends to family. Per USCIS The child can apply but is not automatically given citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 We shouldn't even be talking about this. Just like deploying troops to the border, this is a political stunt intended to gin up feelings before the election. Now we're all talking about whether or not he can do this (he can't) as opposed to the mere fact that he's using troops as political props and is threatening to defy the constitution as a stunt. This is an outgrowth of his racist and nativist white-nationalism and it should be covered as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: If you are in the US you are subject to US jurisdiction, not to any other State otherwise the laws of other States can be enforced in the US No, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which you are a citizen, but that doesn't mean that the foreign nation can just come in to ours and start giving orders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: No, you are still subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which you are a citizen, but that doesn't mean that the foreign nation can just come in to ours and start giving orders. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329 You're in the US, you're subject to US jurisdiction. Otherwise US laws don't apply to you in the US, which is fucking stupid. If you're not subject to US jurisdiction, you can't be tried in US courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblfilms Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 46 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics "Originalists" are going to use to deny the words that are written on the fucking paper. It's going to make the ludicrous reasoning used to justify Roe v. Wade seem positively sound in comparison. Originalism is not about what is in the text, it’s about what the people who wrote and passed it meant at the time. Textualism is what you’re referring to. 5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329 You're in the US, you're subject to US jurisdiction. Otherwise US laws don't apply to you in the US, which is fucking stupid. If you're not subject to US jurisdiction, you can't be tried in US courts. “Babies can’t be tried in US courts” - @mclumber1, probably. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 I will reiterate what I said: 1. I don't believe that birthright citizenship is a thing based on my interpretation of the 14th amendment and based on legislation previously passed by Congress. 2. By making this an issue, Trump is on shaky ground electorally - this will no doubt invigorate the left. 3. If pursued the wrong way, the Supreme Court could permanently decide against the anti-birthright opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Originalism is not about what is in the text, it’s about what the people who wrote and passed it meant at the time. Textualism is what you’re referring to. “Babies can’t be tried in US courts” - @mclumber1, probably. I would hope that people aren't taking my opinion as an affirmation of some racist viewpoint. But it doesn't sound like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblfilms Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 minute ago, mclumber1 said: I would hope that people aren't taking my opinion as an affirmation of some racist viewpoint. But it doesn't sound like it. I don’t think you are affirming a racist viewpoint, I was just ribbin’ ya. I do disagree with your assessment of the 14th and it’s legal history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Just now, sblfilms said: Originalism is not about what is in the text, it’s about what the people who wrote and passed it meant at the time. Textualism is what you’re referring to. As someone who rejects both notions as ludicrous, it's a "distinction without a difference" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 4 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: I will reiterate what I said: 1. I don't believe that birthright citizenship is a thing based on my interpretation of the 14th amendment and based on legislation previously passed by Congress. 2. By making this an issue, Trump is on shaky ground electorally - this will no doubt invigorate the left. 3. If pursued the wrong way, the Supreme Court could permanently decide against the anti-birthright opinion. 1. Your interpretation of the 14th is by far the absolute minority when considering what legal scholars believe. 2. And it will invigorate the racists that support Trump. It may even invite further violence against non-whites. 3. I don't believe this will amount to anything. I certainly don't believe SCOTUS will reverse plain english. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 30, 2018 Author Share Posted October 30, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 32 minutes ago, CayceG said: We shouldn't even be talking about this. Just like deploying troops to the border, this is a political stunt intended to gin up feelings before the election. Now we're all talking about whether or not he can do this (he can't) as opposed to the mere fact that he's using troops as political props and is threatening to defy the constitution as a stunt. This is an outgrowth of his racist and nativist white-nationalism and it should be covered as such. This!!!!! He's trying to change the topic from his racist bomber murderer white supremacists Nazi friends! But EMPs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Also, lewl: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 Do I need to service my computer or are tweets not loading correctly this morning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 30, 2018 Share Posted October 30, 2018 https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=from%3Aap_politics "deleted a tweet"&src=typd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.