Trump plans to end birthright citizenship

[chrisrlink]

@bitjacker basicly a green card holder (legal alien) get's citizenship and get pretty much all rights of being a american (except to become president) I've been to a naturization ceremony held at a federal courthouse for my mom's friend from England

 

[Viri]

I wonder how many born citizens would be able to do the citizenship test...? Specifically Civics. I remember when my dad was studying for the test. I didn't know the answers to some of the questions.

I took those practice test. They're pretty easy. It's a shame how most people in the country probably would fail it.

 

[Xzi]

This is a political stunt for mid-terms. Not that I don't believe Trump hates birthright citizenship (despite the fact that he and his wife come from immigrant families), but it's ingrained in the constitution. There's no way he's going to be able to stay focused on this issue long enough to have the fight over revising/undoing constitutional amendments. Especially because he believes he already undid it with an executive order (he didn't and he can't).

Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
He is going after illegal immigration

Except ending birthright citizenship would harm legal immigrants just as much as illegal immigrants. Thus encouraging more illegal immigration because people will realize they'll be treated like shit either way.

 

[Captain_N]

It's nice because you can't possibly expect someone at that age to learn so much of US history. It's not really important. They get core questions relevant to the United States (and Martin Luther King Jr) and that's it. Whether they contribute or not is your own opinion. My grandma worked when she came to the US and contributes just as much as any jackass my age walking around.

Since when is not learning the history of the country you want to live in not important? You think just because it happens in the past does not make it important? Perhaps we should forget about how the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and almost took over the world, Because you know it happens in the past to its not important....

As for the topic, I dont think you can bend constitutional amendments with executive orders. An executive order is only legal if it does not violate the bill of rights and the us constitution.

 

[the_randomizer]

I don't necessarily oppose changing the system, really, but rather that the acting president thinks he can violate the Constitution with executive orders.

Well, it worked for Obama and his constitutional circumvention to pass executive orders, so, really, Trump's doing that is nothing new AFAIK *shrug*

 

[Xzi]

Well, it worked for Obama and his constitutional circumvention to pass executive orders, so, really, Trump's doing that is nothing new AFAIK *shrug*

What? If Obama had tried to issue executive orders contrary to the language of the constitution, they would have been null and void just like this Trump order is.

 

[Hanafuda]

This is a political stunt for mid-terms.

Already agreed above. An effective one? Maybe.

Except ending birthright citizenship would harm legal immigrants just as much as illegal immigrants. Thus encouraging more illegal immigration because people will realize they'll be treated like shit either way.

I don't understand what you're suggesting here. If you're a legal resident (i.e. legal immigrant), you are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Your presence in the country is recognized, registered, and approved. If you're an illegal immigrant, none of those things are true. All Trump would have to do, in theory, is define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude anyone not legally residing here.

I think the interpretation of that language in the 14th Amendment is debatable, but an E.O. declaring the meaning just means protracted litigation. Of course its pretty clear Obama played fast-and-loose with the law on DACA (especially since he stated he couldn't legally do it with the authority of POTUS alone, and then did it anyway) ... but the only way the birthright citizenship issue ever sees a finalized change is a Constitutional amendment, and President Trump knows that. So yeah, this is just to make it the topic of the day, derail the news cycle, and get some liberals on-record supporting open borders in the last week before the election. The guy's got a real talent for knowing when and how to manipulate the discussion like that. It's almost on par with the master of the art, Bill Clinton.

 

[Xzi]

Already agreed above. An effective one? Maybe.

Negative. He already had his immigrant hating/fearing base riled up with the 'caravan' nonsense. I don't see how adding a strictly anti-constitutional stance helps him turn those people out to vote any more than they already would've.

I don't understand what you're suggesting here. If you're a legal resident (i.e. legal immigrant), you are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States. Your presence in the country is recognized, registered, and approved. If you're an illegal immigrant, none of those things are true.

Yes, but legal immigrant is not the same as citizen. The process of becoming a citizen after immigrating in any way is basically non-existent in 2018. That's largely beside the point because Trump and his base have made it clear that they're only cool with immigrants from white countries. Overall tourism and immigration are sharply down under Trump.

I think the interpretation of that language in the 14th Amendment is debatable, but an E.O. declaring the meaning just means protracted litigation. Of course its pretty clear Obama played fast-and-loose with the law on DACA (especially since he stated he couldn't legally do it with the authority of POTUS alone, and then did it anyway) ... but the only way the birthright citizenship issue ever sees a finalized change is a Constitutional amendment, and President Trump knows that. So yeah, this is just to make it the topic of the day, derail the news cycle, and get some liberals on-record supporting open borders in the last week before the election. The guy's got a real talent for knowing when and how to manipulate the discussion like that. It's almost on par with the master of the art, Bill Clinton.

It's a joke to pretend he's somehow "winning" in the midst of all this. Anybody with half a brain knows it's just a distraction from the recent far right extremist attacks. Which I expect to continue as long as he fails to call it by name. Probably the only thing that's really 'by design' for Trump. His endorsement to other candidates in special elections has thus far been toxic nearly across the board, we shall see if that trend continues in the mid-term election.

The 14th is pretty damn clear and his EO means nothing because it violates the constitution. Now, getting his famous frat alcohol-boofer buddy Kavanaugh and also Gorsuch to help "redefine" the 14th is a different matter altogether, and I wouldn't put it past Republicans as a whole to wipe their asses with the constitution like that. We'd certainly be a Banana Republic at that point, best case scenario.

 

[The Catboy]

Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
He is going after illegal immigration

Expect what he is doing is a violation of the 14th Amendment. People born on US soil are considered legal Americas. It's also worth noting that anyone born of European descent, are all children of immigrants and this is regardless if the parents were legally here or not.

Well, it worked for Obama and his constitutional circumvention to pass executive orders, so, really, Trump's doing that is nothing new AFAIK *shrug*

Can you actually name a time Obama actually did this?

 

[the_randomizer]

Expect what he is doing is a violation of the 14th Amendment. People born on US soil are considered legal Americas. It's also worth noting that anyone born of European descent, are all children of immigrants and this is regardless if the parents were legally here or not.

Can you actually name a time Obama actually did this?

No, I can't, you're right. I've got nothing. I'd best move on before making an dumbass out of myself for the second time today. Sorry.

 

[The Catboy]

No, I can't, you're right. I've got nothing. I'd best move on before making an dumbass out of myself for the second time today. Sorry.

Hey man, at least you admit that you done goofed. I couldn't find an example, but I am also more than willing to be proven wrong. Still goofs happen.

 

[the_randomizer]

Hey man, at least you admit that you done goofed. I couldn't find an example, but I am also more than willing to be proven wrong. Still goofs happen.

I haven't been feeling all that well this week (long story, but I've cried a couple times this week), and as a result, my logic went to shit. Still wanted to apologize. Political discussions bring out the worst in me and I haven't figured out why I get caught up in them. No hard feelings.

 

[SG854]

its interesting because, if it is done via executive order, because of its "wording" what is to stop the next guy to do the same to the second amendment via executive order as well? Just food for thought for conservatives.

I am just saying that this leaves the door open to a mess.

If this was possible, then a Republican will change it, then a Democrat will change it back, it will continue never-ending.

There has been some disagreement for over 100 years over the exact meaning of the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the 14th Amendment, whether this is inclusive of illegal aliens or not. Regardless, I don't think Trump is serious about this. He's trolling, and it's working. He's got people on the TV and all over the internet talking about this now, and that results in Democrats unambiguously advocating for open borders, limitless anchor babies, basically no restrictions on immigration whatsoever.

What's crazy is that the Democratic party were always against illegal immigration. Republicans use to be the ones for open borders. Democrats were against illegal immigration because they said it lowered wages for legal people in this country. If people don't believe me, there are plenty of videos floating on the internet of many people from the Democratic party saying they are against illegal immigration from Hillary, Bill Clinton, to Obama, and a bunch of others. Even Bernie Sanders said that immigrants lower wages. Illegal immigrants were hired for less pay, and Democrats were about protecting wages, raising the minimum wage, and keeping those wages high.

The all of a sudden a 180 happened during Trumps presidency. They started calling Trump a racist for promoting Democratic policies. And they called him a racist for saying we need to put borders. Like WTF! These were things Democrats were saying for years. Democrats said that they need to stop criminals from coming into this country. It seems they recent change was to virtue signal, they say what they can to get votes, they're politicians.

And the left use to praise Cesar Chavez for his anti-immigration rhetoric. Cesar Chaves would gather a group of armed Union members in the desert to assault Mexican Nationals trying to sneak across the border with chains and whips with barbed wires. They firebombed Illegal Aliens houses that worked as scabs.

Obama against illigal immigration


Hillary against immigration

 

[Xzi]

What's crazy is that the Democratic party were always against illegal immigration. Republicans use to be the ones for open borders.

Talk about some revisionist history. The truth is that there have been some Republicans pushing for common sense immigration reform over the years (which is not a negative thing), but they've always been in the minority. GWB attempted to create a path to citizenship but it was shot down by the Republican leadership at large.

OTOH Democrats have never been against enforcing the laws on the books, they just don't see a reason that it can't be done humanely and why we can't make some changes to the existing system (which is clearly far from perfect).

 

[Taleweaver]

To be honest I don't believe the word "plans". Sure, it's his position, and I don't even disagree that much. I mean : I can name instances (and I'm sure others can name examples) where granting citizenship because of birth (and nothing else) would be just silly.

But this is Donald Trump were talking about. He doesn't follow any ethics, has no overall goal or long term intention and is a notorious liar. I give it far more chance that he just says that at meetings without having done any research on his case of it pulling through. At best, he already has the name in his mind for whom to blame a future failure (basically : the first person who has to say to him that it's unconstitutional).

 

[smf]

Also, Trump knows how to play the media, and it's all working, just in time for the midterms. This is the same guy who pretty much got free publicity during the 2016 election. He pretty much knows how to fuck with the media.

More importantly, he knows how to fuck with the electorate. Personally I would be so offended by that, that I wouldn't vote for him even if I agreed with the slime coming out of his mouth. I'm not sure how the people who vote for him get over that, I guess they are so excited by racism and #MAGA that they'll let it all slide.

Trump was never an immigrant, he was born in NYC, his father was a US citizen and his mother immigrated LEGALLY and was a US citizen by the time he was born
He is going after illegal immigration

Illegal immigration is a man made concept, it was invented by a bunch of old white guys who pulled up the drawbridge after they arrived without gaining permission from the american natives.

It's easy to get rid of illegal immigration, don't put people in a position where they know they'll be turned down due to racism.

 

[CallmeBerto]

Talk about some revisionist history. The truth is that there have been some Republicans pushing for common sense immigration reform over the years (which is not a negative thing), but they've always been in the minority. GWB attempted to create a path to citizenship but it was shot down by the Republican leadership at large.

OTOH Democrats have never been against enforcing the laws on the books, they just don't see a reason that it can't be done humanely and why we can't make some changes to the existing system (which is clearly far from perfect).

It is insane how broken our system is. My hope is that this stunt will cause some kind of change; though I'm not holding my breath on that one.

 

[Deleted User]

Talk about some revisionist history. The truth is that there have been some Republicans pushing for common sense immigration reform over the years (which is not a negative thing), but they've always been in the minority. GWB attempted to create a path to citizenship but it was shot down by the Republican leadership at large.

OTOH Democrats have never been against enforcing the laws on the books, they just don't see a reason that it can't be done humanely and why we can't make some changes to the existing system (which is clearly far from perfect).

Out of curiosity, what's your views in immigration?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

To be honest I don't believe the word "plans". Sure, it's his position, and I don't even disagree that much. I mean : I can name instances (and I'm sure others can name examples) where granting citizenship because of birth (and nothing else) would be just silly.

But this is Donald Trump were talking about. He doesn't follow any ethics, has no overall goal or long term intention and is a notorious liar. I give it far more chance that he just says that at meetings without having done any research on his case of it pulling through. At best, he already has the name in his mind for whom to blame a future failure (basically : the first person who has to say to him that it's unconstitutional).

I disagree. You don't become president by having 'no overall goal'. This is the same guy who was tossed out of the predictions entirely. This is the same guy who somehow has enough control over congress to avoid impeachment.

Sheer luck?

I don't think so.

Whether you love him or hate him, it's a terrible idea to underestimate him.

 

[smf]

Sheer luck?

I don't think so.

The easiest way to become a millionaire is to inherit a billion dollars.

Trump has taken advantage of his luck, but it's still luck.

 

[Cyan]

I don't know a lot about america history, current political situation and all the laws. so my comment might be wrong or offtopic.

I knew birthright citizenship (getting nationality?) was a thing, and it was useful for things like GPA (assisted birth, child born from another mother, etc.) where the newborn got american nationality by rights, and didn't have to wonder if it had to get the biological or natural parent's nationality.
well, that's just a specific thing, I don't know how common it is.

I'll talk about France which I know better.
France changed a LOT all the nationality laws over the last 2 centuries, and it's just how it is. change is change. there's nothing good or bad, that's decided and we comply, but all these are mainly historical reasons.
America is maybe less constrained about historical reason, because it's a big country and had less wars than europe.
In France, for example, the law changed regarding marriage with someone from a different country based on the fact that country was allied or enemies during the WW2. Nothing is really automatic or always identical, every country and every nationality has different rules applied to become French.

For birth citizenship, France changed it in 1850 to be "double jus solis", you need 2 generations of birth to get it. If you are born in France, from one of your parent born in France too, then you get citizenship.
it's like that for a long time and I don't see it as a problem. on the contrary, seeing how the country is providing social help to people, if there were birth right right away then we would had a lot more immigrant coming to France just to give birth and earn many rights and get paid for lot of things even if they don't live in France and even if the parents are not French. there are already a lot of abuse and social aids given to people not even living or working in France. The State is providing to people abusing the system.

That's maybe the issue with America? Maybe there are too many abuse of travel birth, or border birth, done on purpose just to get a future for your kids in a good country?