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

That's my point, he was born here, hence the 14th Amendment.

 

Yes, but he had an American mother and was a permanent legal resident, so not the same thing at all as birth tourism or the children of people here illegally. Don't get me wrong, I think Trump will lose this legal battle the same way he's lost most of the other ones. That said, there is certainly a legal case to be made to support the notion that citizenship was not meant to be bestowed in such instances.

Do you think it's a coincidence that he brings this up immediately after Kavanaugh is seated as a Justice?

 

I believe the requirement used to be that you had to have two U.S. citizen parents when born abroad to be considered a U.S. citizen. I seem to recall that requirement was changed to one parent after Obama was born.


INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH (1952)
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375

 

Also, Trump will sign an E.O. and it will be immediately appealed and may end up in the Supreme Court.

Every other court can rule like Lanny said if they want to use that reason. Then the Supreme Court can decide to hear it or not.

 

I don't have anything to do with Fox News, the least trusted television news organization.

 

I think they already had a say on the issue when they refused to hear the allegation that Obama was not a citizen because he was born abroad and only had one U.S. citizen parent. Now, he only had one U.S. citizen parent which means he could only be a citizen if he was born here and the court agreed that being born here made him a U.S. citizen. I'm almost certain that the requirement that you needed both parents as U.S. citizens for a child to be a citizen was changed to only one parent after Obama was born.

 

You're entitled to your views on that, obviously. I do a mix of news outlets so I can get a broad range of viewpoints. The article that is linked isn't by Fox News. It's a guest opinion piece on this specific issue. It has, from what I can see, a very good analysis of the legal position that would be used by the Trump Administration. I found it to be interesting and enlightening and far more helpful than the CNN/MSNBC bluster on the topic [OH MY GOD, HE CAN'T DO THAT!!!!]

 

Yup. That's the way it will play out.

 

The Court did not hear the issues that will be brought in this case. They may or may not hear it, but if you'd actually read the article, you'd see that this is not without some constitutional merit.

 

Then, why not go to the horse's mouth?

 

What article? This is now so convoluted that I no longer know which article you're referring to without doing some extensive research.

Edit: Are you referring to Fox News? If so, therein lies the problem.

 

I never meant to say anything more than that. I think it's of value because it gives insight into the legal arguments that the Trump Administration will make, assuming he goes through with this. Trump's batting average on these kinds of cases has not been anything to brag about.

 

My issue isn't with the amendment it is with him thinking he can override the constitution and do as he pleases. To me, he has become dangerous with this mindset and it isn't the first time as he has several of his wacky ideas thrown out of courts but I see him continuing down that same path. Trump seems to want to be and in some cases thinks he can be a dictator and no way will I ever support anyone that thinks that.

Some want the amendment changed and if so it has to go through the proper channels. I want assault rifles banned (no I don;t think all guns need to be regulated as there are plenty of options for gun owners but we have done nothing for way to long to try and control these outrageous acts of violence and something needs to change, but then again it has to go through proper channels.

 

See my post #123 above. Yes, it's posted on the Fox News website. It's worth a read, but I'll leave it up to you whether to read it or not, if your sensibilities are really that delicate.

 

Sorry barfo, already bought and paid for as I expect to start reaping the rewards soon just as the nice Nigerian Prince promised me. I feel so lucky that he chose me.

 

I never intended to be the standard bearer for the Trump Administration on this. Just pointing to an article that explains their legal reasoning. I don't think that their position is that Trump can ignore the Constitution, but rather that the way the 14th Amendment is being administered is not consistent with the intent of the clause with respect to births associated with parents who are not here legally or who come here simply to have a child, gain US citizenship and then return to their home country. I have no idea as to whether the SCOTUS would agree, or if they'd even take an appeal on the subject.

 

My sensitivities are inflamed by junk news so, yes, I'm sensitive to junk news.

But how about commenting on my post and not on me? By the way, your mom wears combat boots.

 

I don't know if you intended it, but it almost sounds like you are saying Trump wants to sell Trump Towers in Miami because Russians and Chinese are coming here to have babies. It likely isn't making him any money like many of his properties lately and why he wants to get rid of it. Heck, many of the Trump "named" properties have been removing his name from the properties. Wonder why?

 

I did comment on your post. If you found my little dig about "sensibilities" to be a personal affront, I apologize. I do find the whole Chicken Little-sque "FOX NEWS!!!! FOX NEWS!!!" thing to be silly. If you never check out Shepard Smith's news broadcasts, you're doing yourself a disservice, IMHO. The opinion guys like Tucker Carlson & Lumpy Hannity, I give a miss.