Idiot president will revoke 14th Amendment by executive order
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Well...Give Trump credit: The media is no longer discussing the MAGA bomber, the Synagogue shooting, or the shooting in Kroger’s...all of which happened just last week. He has re-focused the news cycle back where he wants it.
One shithole country after another. This is why you keep losing. You'd rather double down on a the side of a debate that cannot be defended. Every day normal people will never get behind the idea of anchor babies as a form of legitimate citizenship. Why can't you admit that it's a stupid policy, regardless of which president is in power?
Stop living life thru some strange political proxy and just look at things clearly and objectively.
The USA and Canada are in the list. So you consider them to be "Shithole" countries?
Anyway, now this racist term seems normal to all the Trumptard Cult Followers now that their cult leader has used it although in the most inappropriate manner.
Most people are simply shrugging off birthright citizenship as an idea whose time has run out. The point of the thread is that Trump needs a constitutional amendment to change the law, not that the law is a good one.
Wake up.
The prevailing legal opinion is that an executive order would not be effective in defining the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" found in the 14th Amendment (largely because Congress has already legislated in relation to this matter). However, there are a number of legal experts who believe that Congress has the power to define that phrase in such a way that "birthright" citizenship would no longer be recognized (without a constitutional amendment). The fact that no previous congress has defined it in such a way, and the additional fact that a number of statutes which recognize the existing practice would also have to be amended, make the legal proposition that SCOTUS would accept redefinition by congress a 50/50 proposition at best. However, the political prospects of this happening are far less likely. Even if the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, a number of Republican representatives would be unlikely to support the legislation required.
I don't find Trumps idea here to be "stupid". It's just highly unlikely that he can get enough political support to take a realistic run at it.
Alan Dershowitz weighs in to the debate on Twitter
https://twitter.com/alandersh/status/1057996976577380352?s=21
https://twitter.com/alandersh/status/1057996976577380352?s=21
The Congress may or may not agree, but Trump is not looking for the Congress to decide. The "idiot president" wants to use the executive order which must trigger one of the Circuit Courts to rule against it, thus sending it to the originalist controlled Supreme Court. And there, he does have a real chance.
I don't think even the current composition of the court will recognize the exercise of executive authority in a field where congress has already asserted its authority. Beyond that, even for an originalist judge, there is a good historical argument that the language had the very specific intent of excluding Native Americans, the children of foreign diplomats, and children of occupying enemy soldiers, rather than excluding others born in the US to non-US citizens.
My belief is that Trump has already got this advice, but is simply trying to force, through this aggressive position, softer Republicans to get on board with Immigration reform.
If he does well next week, they'll be on board no matter what. If he does poorly, the Supreme Court is the only way, regardless of the Republican position. Trump loves taking credit for, well, pretty much everything. So, I'm betting on him going alone whether the Party is on board or not- witness his dressing down of Paul Ryan on this very issue.
And the fomtoolery continues. Trump is obviously using the asylum caravan in Mexico as his big ticket election issue.
President Trump on Thursday sought to keep the spotlight on his hardline immigration policies, saying he is "finalizing a plan" to deny asylum claims from people who enter the country illegally.
The White House had signaled the president would be announcing the legally questionable change to the nation's asylum system during a Roosevelt Room event days before the midterm elections.
Instead, Trump announced no new policies, but suggested an official announcement on the asylum plan could come in an executive order "next week."
"Under this plan, the illegal aliens will no longer get a free pass into the country by lodging meritless claims in seeking asylum," the president said in a speech delivered before leaving the White House for a campaign rally in Missouri.
Trump said asylum applications would have to be made at ports of entry only under the proposal.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 says any immigrant in the U.S. may apply for asylum regardless of whether they entered through a legal port of entry. But Trump insisted his plan would be "totally legal."
Any asylum-seekers who are caught crossing the border illegally will be held in tents instead of being released pending a legal hearing, he said.
"We are building massive numbers of tents and we will hold them in tents," he said.
The president's comments was aimed at a caravan of migrants from Central America traveling toward the U.S., which reportedly includes many who are fleeing poverty and violence and seeking asylum. Trump called the caravan an "invasion" that poses a major security threat.
"These illegal caravans will not be allowed into the United States and they should turn back now," said Trump, who has previously suggested the caravan represents a security threat, partly because it likely includes "Middle Easterners."
Trump called the provision allowing those seeking asylum to enter anywhere a "loophole" that is a magnet for illegal immigration.
"The endemic abuse of our asylum system makes a mockery of our immigration system," he said.
But he did not provide additional details about his proposal, such as whether the policy would apply to all asylum-seekers or just those traveling in the caravan.
The president has sought to make immigration the signature issue of the midterms in an attempt to motivate his conservative base to show up at the polls.
Trump has largely focused his attention on the caravan, dispatching 5,200 troops to the U.S. southern border even as the group has shrunk in size as it makes its way through Mexico. Trump has said he could send as many as 15,000 service members, more than twice as many people than are walking in the caravan.
Democrats, and some Republicans, have accused Trump of stoking fears by making unfounded claims about immigrants and claiming he would end the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Trump insisted the U.S. remains a "welcoming country" under his leadership, even as he suggested U.S. soldiers could fire on the caravan if provoked.
"I hope there won't be that, but I will tell you this – anybody throwing stones, rocks like they did to Mexico ... We will consider that a firearm, because there's not much difference," he said.
U.S. soldiers are generally prohibited under federal law from carrying out law enforcement duties on American soil.
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...8hINpR54BH2tBOHPcZzF6VYTUPUxBGiyBk70TxWuX5GtE
President Trump on Thursday sought to keep the spotlight on his hardline immigration policies, saying he is "finalizing a plan" to deny asylum claims from people who enter the country illegally.
The White House had signaled the president would be announcing the legally questionable change to the nation's asylum system during a Roosevelt Room event days before the midterm elections.
Instead, Trump announced no new policies, but suggested an official announcement on the asylum plan could come in an executive order "next week."
"Under this plan, the illegal aliens will no longer get a free pass into the country by lodging meritless claims in seeking asylum," the president said in a speech delivered before leaving the White House for a campaign rally in Missouri.
Trump said asylum applications would have to be made at ports of entry only under the proposal.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 says any immigrant in the U.S. may apply for asylum regardless of whether they entered through a legal port of entry. But Trump insisted his plan would be "totally legal."
Any asylum-seekers who are caught crossing the border illegally will be held in tents instead of being released pending a legal hearing, he said.
"We are building massive numbers of tents and we will hold them in tents," he said.
The president's comments was aimed at a caravan of migrants from Central America traveling toward the U.S., which reportedly includes many who are fleeing poverty and violence and seeking asylum. Trump called the caravan an "invasion" that poses a major security threat.
"These illegal caravans will not be allowed into the United States and they should turn back now," said Trump, who has previously suggested the caravan represents a security threat, partly because it likely includes "Middle Easterners."
Trump called the provision allowing those seeking asylum to enter anywhere a "loophole" that is a magnet for illegal immigration.
"The endemic abuse of our asylum system makes a mockery of our immigration system," he said.
But he did not provide additional details about his proposal, such as whether the policy would apply to all asylum-seekers or just those traveling in the caravan.
The president has sought to make immigration the signature issue of the midterms in an attempt to motivate his conservative base to show up at the polls.
Trump has largely focused his attention on the caravan, dispatching 5,200 troops to the U.S. southern border even as the group has shrunk in size as it makes its way through Mexico. Trump has said he could send as many as 15,000 service members, more than twice as many people than are walking in the caravan.
Democrats, and some Republicans, have accused Trump of stoking fears by making unfounded claims about immigrants and claiming he would end the Constitution's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Trump insisted the U.S. remains a "welcoming country" under his leadership, even as he suggested U.S. soldiers could fire on the caravan if provoked.
"I hope there won't be that, but I will tell you this – anybody throwing stones, rocks like they did to Mexico ... We will consider that a firearm, because there's not much difference," he said.
U.S. soldiers are generally prohibited under federal law from carrying out law enforcement duties on American soil.
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...8hINpR54BH2tBOHPcZzF6VYTUPUxBGiyBk70TxWuX5GtE
Let's go through the legal issues:
1. He can't use an executive order to change an existing congressional bill made law;
2. Under both the bill and the UN Convention of Refugees, asylum claims can be made at an entry port or at any point inside the US;
3. He can't hold people indefinitely without bail hearings without breaching the Constitution;
4. He can't hold people in harsh conditions - i.e tents - without breaching the constitution;
5. He can't use the army as a law enforcement agency inside the US;
6. He can't instruct the army to use deadly force on civilians and a rock or two ain't going to change that.
Anyone think of any more legal or constitutional breaches here?
1. He can't use an executive order to change an existing congressional bill made law;
2. Under both the bill and the UN Convention of Refugees, asylum claims can be made at an entry port or at any point inside the US;
3. He can't hold people indefinitely without bail hearings without breaching the Constitution;
4. He can't hold people in harsh conditions - i.e tents - without breaching the constitution;
5. He can't use the army as a law enforcement agency inside the US;
6. He can't instruct the army to use deadly force on civilians and a rock or two ain't going to change that.
Anyone think of any more legal or constitutional breaches here?
Republicans are starting to shit bricks over Trump's tactic of playing up fear of brown people.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...aravan-2018-elections-republican-party-956659
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...aravan-2018-elections-republican-party-956659
Some countries don't accept you revoking their citizenship. There is also the issue about how the parent's country defines citizenship. Many/most automatically allow citizenship for anyone born of citizens (or at last make the process very easy).
I understand the differing viewpoints (and even with the change, the US would still give citizenship in a more moral way than countries that rely on 'purity' of bloodlines. What people are missing here is not whether the US has the right to define how their citizenship works but rather Trumps belief that he can bypass congress to do it.
Most nations do not accept dual citizenship. So if you accept the US Citizenship, then you have to revoke the Citizenship of your country of Origin. Now if your parents are no longer citizens of that country of origin then some countries will accept your application for that citizenship as it is your country of origin. But there are nations that do not accept is and it could be a long process to redeem that citizenship. In the meanwhile you are considered to be stateless.
This is an example:
http://www.unhcr.org/stateless-people.html
27 countries are not just a few nations!!
