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

That's the problem, like I mentioned there are proper channels to change things and it has been administered the current way for awhile until we got a President that has shown to be racist towards people of color. He's been stirring up this caravan as if we have a large army of militants coming to invade our country. He keeps saying they are trying to come into the country illegally. How do we even know that they won;t use the proper method, and if they do, no way should the parents and kids (who have basically been treated like prisoners) be separated like they have done and were told to no longer do. There are Trump rules and then there is the constitution. They often conflict and that scares the crap out of me that we have someone in charge with such a callous attitude towards others.

 

I just don't pay any attention to Fox because of the large multitude of their rather biased errors.
I never intended to convey any assertion that you didn't respond to my post at all. I just wanted to put out there a reminder to all of us that we need to respond to the post and not the poster because of your comment about my sensitivity, which nearly made me cry. I had to fight back the tears. I will forever be scarred.

 

Wait till after the elections. I think things will really go to hell or at least they will try and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets someone in there to fire Mueller and really try and screw up the investigation.

 

I always suspected your posts were snowflakes.

 

I cry at chick flicks.

 

Two obvious problems with the article.

First, he conflates diplomats with all foreign citizens. This is legally absurd. The "jurisdiction" the US has over normal foreign citizens on our soil is several order of magnitudes greater.

Second, the big legal precedent he relies on involves the outrageous discrimination native Americans were once subjected to. Yes, the good white folks of this country once denied that native Americans were US citizens. (let the irony of that sink in for a minute) Yes, some courts upheld this position - just as they upheld discrimination against African Americans. Is that the legal hill you want to die on?

What this article proves is that the author has no sense of shame.

 

Hogwash. To follow the intent of the Constitution and it's Amendments is to let it be.

It ain't broke, and certainly no Socialist can ever improve on it.

All laws are sponsored by a politician, and his/her name is attached, but (for some strange reason) the actual law is usually written by one of his/her largest donors. The overwhelming majority of laws in my lifetime were introduced and sponsored by Dems. They are mostly in the Freedom-stifling, micromanaging, control freak dictatorship vein, and weaken our country for no other reason than to transfer profit and power to the 1%ers who wrote and paid for the law.

Nearly all of them are directly contrary to the Constitution's intent, meaning and purpose.

 

Y'all don't understand....

This is part of the reason they put that RAPIST on the bench in the first place.

This is the beginning of it all...

When Trump signs his executive order there will be lawsuits.

It will go all the way to the SCOTUS.

And yes I'll join the discourse and call Kavanaugh WTF I want to call him!

Fuck him and the misogynistic assholes that put him on the bench!

 

More than a stretch, like so many of your posts it's completely false.

It has been debated over and over ever since it was enacted.

In 1993, Dem leader Harry Reid suggested exactly what Trump is saying.

In 2010 Rep Lindsey Graham did the same.

Both Clintons, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and scores of other current pols have done the same at some point in their careers.

Here's the original author of the bill clearly explaining what it says.

The U.S. Senate record of debate on the birthright citizenship clause shows that Republican Jacob Howard proposed it on May 30, 1866. In his opening statement about this matter, he said:

This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

The senators then discussed the meaning of the proposed language and voiced conflicting views about it. With regard to the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction,” Howard explained that:

the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. Certainly, gentlemen cannot contend that an Indian belonging to a tribe, although born within the limits of a State, is subject to this full and complete jurisdiction.

Regardless of which way you want to interpret it, anyone born to a foreigner (even a legally present foreigner) in a Sanctuary City/State is obviously not a citizen. This view hasn't popped up yet in the media as far as I know but eventually it will occur to someone and all hell will break loose. Sanctuaries will have to quickly reverse their status or be prepared for the most massive roundup and deportation ever seen. The bulk of Latino US citizens alive in the US are facing deportation thanks to the over-reach of Dems buying votes.

 

He has won the ones that reached the SCOTUS, as he will win this one when it reaches SCOTUS.

It's why SCOTUS was created, to defend the Constitution against overreach by politicians.

It's also why Obama rarely had any interest in taking his powerplays through the courts, as he knew they were patently illegal under the Constitution and would eventually be ruled as such.

 

You're probably the only person who actually still believes any of that exposed smear attempt.

 

Nobody entering our country through Mexico or Canada can believably claim asylum in the US, as neither country is any more dangerous than the American city they would end up in.

Also, the same goes for most who arrive at our coastal borders by plane via wealthy and peaceful European countries.

 

I don't know of any socialists that are running. However, I'm sure you can deftly explain why every Democrat is a socialist. Perhaps it's the health care issue. Perhaps there are people undeserving of health care you can point to. Maybe it's even pre existing conditions.

 

Micro managing such as trying to prevent what happened in Flint Michigan? How about the Love Canal? Or what about Florida's red tide? That kind of micromanaging?

 

Statistics don't bare this out. Honduras is the most dangerous country not involved in a war.

 

What is the nearest safe country to Honduras?

 

The problem with that argument is that many Hondurans blame the US government for contributing to the chaos in their country.

If I believe Russia is trying to interfere in my country, why would I go protest outside the Canadian embassy? This "caravan" is conducting a protest, not an invasion. Trump's over-the-top response just proves to the rest of the world we have a guilty conscience on the issue.

And yes, I know that alienating our former friends and allies is part of the Trump package. Whatever.

 

The United States.

 

Oh shit!

That means we are required to give everyone from Nicaragua to Mexico asylum if they want.

 

A protest huh?