Politics TRUMP SAYS HE PLANS TO SIGN EXECUTIVE ORDER TO TERMINATE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by SlyPokerDog, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I saw this last night and was waiting for a thread. The only way I could think of this working is arguing that the children aren't under our jurisdiction.

    That would be quite a stretch but the Supreme Court could rule that way and there's nothing anyone could do about.

    I know liberals love judges making laws...this should be fine with them.
     
    MARIS61 likes this.
  2. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    Actually, I take it as, Trump is the first President to enforce the law correctly. The 14th amendment was written to codify that former slaves were residents of the US. This to put down the movement to send them back to Africa.

    "Amendment XIV – Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    You should note that the former slaves, most of them born in the US were indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the US and no other country since it had been illegal to import slave for many years prior to them gaining freedom and the passing of this amendment.
    I don't remember were it is exactly, perhaps Natural Law, that, No man is without a country. Thus the 14th amendment made it so.

    Visitors to the country, legally or illegally, are subject to the jurisdiction of another nation, to this one only temporarily as a guest
    and not at all as an illegal, that has already broken the law.

    So the 14th amendment is finally interpreted correctly by Trump.

    The same as we find that in the case of our own citizens born abroad. Like John McCain, a natural Born Citizen even though his place of birth was Panama. It is logical and consistent with how we enforce the law and with Natural Law as found in the
    Law of Nations.
     
  3. oldmangrouch

    oldmangrouch persona non grata

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    Messages:
    12,403
    Likes Received:
    6,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I had the same thought. If the fetus is the person and the woman is considered nothing more than a mobile incubator......how deep does this rabbit hole go?
     
  4. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    Actually, I think it would be the correct rule and entirely fitting the original intent of the law.
     
  5. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting. So it all comes down to the interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Are babies born on US soil to non-residents (or non-legal residents) necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? If not, then the 14th doesn't technically apply to them.

    Never thought of it that way, but there's logic behind the position.
     
  6. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,490
    Likes Received:
    27,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump....

    You sir... Are NOT an idiot.

    You're "smaht".

    You know exactly how to get your rabid racists out to vote.
     
  7. barfo

    barfo triggered obsessive commie pinko boomer maniac Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    34,058
    Likes Received:
    24,946
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Blazer OT board
    A child born here is not a 'visitor', as they've not come from anywhere else. The jurisdiction phrase pretty obviously refers to the child, not the parents.

    barfo
     
    Chris Craig and dviss1 like this.
  8. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    If we are war with let's say...Russia. Russian forces were on our soil and Russian women soldiers got pregnant and had babies while technically on US soil should the babies be US citizens?

    I don't think the founding fathers would think so. Just like they probably wouldn't want people having machine guns.
     
  9. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,490
    Likes Received:
    27,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your friend was either wrong or they lied to you You should do your own research.
     
  10. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Fine with me.
     
  11. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The argument though is that the 14th already contains the phrase "born or naturalized in the United States", separate from the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If being born on US soil automatically means they're also subject to US jurisdiction, why would both phrases be included?

    The existence of the second phrase does seem to suggest different criteria from the first.
     
  12. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, the founding fathers didn't write the amendment, but I understand your point.
     
  13. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,490
    Likes Received:
    27,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why talk about that hypothetical situation when we have an ACTUAL one with Russia? I'll even link Fox News:

    Russians paying big money to have their babies born in US

    But Trump doesn't want brown people er, people from "shithole" countries coming in.
     
    The Professional Fan likes this.
  14. Chris Craig

    Chris Craig (Blazersland) I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,712
    Likes Received:
    58,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does Russia use pregnant women as soldiers? At war, soldiers would be here to fight not to fuck.
     
    The Professional Fan likes this.
  15. Chris Craig

    Chris Craig (Blazersland) I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    58,712
    Likes Received:
    58,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The mole people
     
  16. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I know, was just using the liberal 2nd amendment argument in reverse.

    The 14th was when? Couple of hundred years ago? I'd literally have to google it but my point is that people of the time didn't imagine Chinese or Russian women flying here pregant to have the baby.
     
  17. dviss1

    dviss1 Emcee Referee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2011
    Messages:
    29,490
    Likes Received:
    27,339
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why is no one complaining about the million or so undocumented EUROPEANS in our country...?

    We know why...
     
  18. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would've been after the Civil War, so about 150 years back. Yes, I'd agree that the current immigration debate would not have been foreseen at the time of its composition.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.
  19. bodyman5000 and 1

    bodyman5000 and 1 Lions, Tigers, Me, Bears

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2013
    Messages:
    19,582
    Likes Received:
    13,216
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    You already posted this as it's own thread. Thought it should be stopped then, think it should be stopped now.

    If my wife gets pregnant (god forbid) I'll take her to Disneyland to give birth so my kid can get in for free because he/she was born there.
     
  20. PtldPlatypus

    PtldPlatypus Let's go Baby Blazers! Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    34,281
    Likes Received:
    43,615
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't we have a thread about that? I thought the forum consensus was that it was BS, but it was hard to fault them if they're not actually violating any laws.

    If the 14th is reinterpreted to not permit such activity, then that would be great.
     
    bodyman5000 and 1 likes this.

Share This Page