Trump plans to sign EO ending birthright citizenship: Axios

[Guest shiloh357]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Clearly some biased opinion in the article, but this is what a Constitutional Law Professor wrote:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-constitution/574381/

The Citizenship Clause Means What It Says

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment were clear that the United States is one nation, with one class of citizens, and that citizenship extends to everyone born here.

But when the 14th Amendment was written we didn't have an illegal alien issue.   It cannot mean now, what it didn't mean back then.  Until we had a welfare and food stamps, we didn't have an illegal alien problem.  When the 14th Amendment was written, immigration to the US was much different than it is now.

Back in 1868 when this amendment was ratified, immigrants came here through ports of entry, and they were expected to learn English and they were expected to have money to live on while seeking employment.   You have to have an education and a skill that made you a benefit to the country.  There was no expectation that you would live off of the government dole.  We didn't have all of the social services we have now, and there were high expectations for immigrants entering the US. 

To trying retro-actively interpret the Constitution to include people attempting to come here illegally to sponge off of the American people is crazy and irrational.  

Quote

In an interview with Axios on HBO, Trump confirmed what had been suspected since last summer: He is planning an executive order that would try to change the meaning of the Constitution as it has been applied for the past 150 years—and declare open season on millions of native-born Americans.

That is a lie.   I am not surprised some liberal liberal professor would conjure up something so dishonest.

Quote

The citizenship-denial lobby has focused on the words subject to the jurisdiction. Its members argue that citizens of foreign countries, even if they live in the U.S., are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus their children are not covered by the clause. To test this idea, ask yourself: If a foreign citizen rear-ends your car on your drive home today, will you, or the police, allow him to drive away on the grounds that a foreign citizen cannot be arrested, ticketed, or sued?

This  is not about foreign citizens.   It's about illegal aliens.   And "subject to jurisdiction" doesn't mean that foreigners are not subject to our laws and law enforcement.   To suggest that we think that way is just more dishonesty from this Leftist.

Quote

If the administration attempts to strip citizenship from millions of Americans—millions of people who have never known any other country—the trapdoor to dictatorship will have fallen open.

This isn't going to strip citizenship from anyone. That suggestion is just liberal nonsense.   It is going to prevent future attempts to use babies as a way of skirting around immigration policies. 

Quote

Our Constitution is a gift to us from the generations that went before, and particularly the millions who died in the Civil War; the Fourteenth Amendment is the centerpiece of that Constitution. If we let Donald Trump destroy it, then history will regard both him and us with equal contempt.

Trump is not destroying the 14th amendment.   He is doing what should have been done a long time ago to stem illegal immigration.

The problem with Leftists that they cannot allow for the nuance that exists between wanting a strong immigration policy but also wanting there to be a system that punishes illegal entry and rewards legal entry and incentivizes legal entry while discouraging illegal entry.   

To the Left, you either support ALL people entering country even those illegals, or you're a racist or you hate all immigrants or some other ignorant clap trap. 

Sorry, but this guy can't seem to the frame the issue correctly and is arguing against something made up by the Left that isn't actually real.  So typical of liberals when they don't actually have a cogent argument to make.  Just empty, hollow arguments like the ones this professor makes.

[Guest 1sheep]

7 hours ago, LadyKay said:

From my understanding this seems to be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide Not Trump. 

You meant to say POTUS! 

He can make sure the amendment is followed as orig intended all by himself! He is the most powerful man in the USA.. Supreme Court would change the amendment if need be which is not necessary.

[LadyKay]

I'm going to end my discussion of this topic with this. "We will see". 

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 10:37 AM, LadyKay said:

My whole point to my freedom of speech rant was to say if one of our rights can be taken away, then others may follow.

Trump isn't talking about taking anyone's freedoms away.  

Quote

So we should be cautions of these things.   That was what I meant. I never meant to get into a debate about what is and what is not a violation of free speech.  Isn't this the same argument  gun people give for not wanting   the  2 Amendment messed with? 

No, it is not the same argument.   Trump isn't messing with the 14th amendment.   Trump was actually using the exact wording of the Amendment.  He is actually returning to the original intent of the Amendment BEFORE there was any illegal  immigration.  

That is not the same as the Left wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment.  Trump did not call for a repeal of the 14th amendment.   Those who argue that Trump was trying to change the Constitution didn't actually listen to what Trump said.  They listened to liberal talking heads and the political establishment tell them what they thought they heard Trump say.