As with so many constitutional and political disputes, the renewed controversy over the 14th Amendment has both sides claiming degrees of clarity and certainty that belied by a long and convoluted historical record. I have written and spoken this week about the arguments on both sides of this issue — a debate that has raged for 150 years. Frankly, I believe a court ruling would be welcomed to bring clarity and closure to the issue. The plain meaning of the 14th Amendment supports unlimited birthright citizenship and that is likely where the courts would come out on the issue. Nevertheless, from the time of ratification, there has been a debate over that interpretation with many Democratic and Republican members arguing for decades that the matter is left to Congress. For decades, many have held to the belief that either the14th Amendment leaves the matter to Congress or limits the right to birthright citizenship.
As I have stated, President Donald Trump is wrong to try to do this with an executive order. I testified against President Barack Obama using such executive orders to force major changes in immigration and other areas. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. (Note: if the 14th Amendment is found by the court to be limited to exclude illegal immigrants, he would not be trying to “amend the Constitution” with an executive order but simply order compliance with its meaning).
Sen. Lindsay Graham has said that he will introduce legislation to accomplish the same result. That is a much better vehicle for a change. It removes the obvious threshold question of the means used by challengers.
Once a court looks at the meaning of the 14th Amendment, the plain meaning of the Amendment would likely prevail and I would be inclined to that view. However, it is wrong to dismiss alternative interpretations as frivolous or bad faith. This is a long standing debate. The Amendment itself was designed to address a different issue: guaranteeing the full rights of citizenship for free slaves after the Civil War. The status of the children of undocumented immigrants was simply not the focus.
That forces a lot of attention on the six maddening words popping up in the middle of the Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The natural reading would be to simply conclude that anyone on our soil is subject to its jurisdiction and therefore any children born to them are citizens by birth. That is a compelling interpretation based on the plain making, though it makes the six words somewhat redundant with “born . . . in the United States.”
Making this more difficult is the fact that illegal immigration was not a primary concern during the period. Indeed, few academics argue that the drafters had this specific question in mind when they wrote this Amendment. Nevertheless, some of the drafters appeared to continue to hold with a more narrow interpretation like Senator Jacob Howard who said during the debate that
“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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
There was also the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which stated “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Even the meaning of that lines was contested.
The point is that there is a basis for people of good faith to disagree and there is no need to overstate the record. The advantage on the issue rests with the plain meaning and the unlimited view of birthright citizenship. It also means that Trump is wrong about using an executive order. However, a clear ruling of the Court would be useful in establishing whether a constitutional amendment is required.
In a related story, Trump says he is going to dispatch 15,000 troops to “defend the border” from the oncoming “horde.” These people are still hundreds of miles away from any part of the US border, and any reaching the border will no doubt have dwindled by then.
So, what would all these troops do? Shoot to kill? I don’t think a pile of bodies of women and children stacked up at the border would play well, even on Fox. I’m not even sure US troops would even carry out any such orders.
So, what would all these troops do? Shoot to kill?
Yep. That’s why the troops have guns.
I don’t think a pile of bodies of women and children stacked up at the border
Yeah, I’m sure the little munchkins are going to charge 15,000 armed men. (While we’re at it, where do the adults implicated in this latest exercise in sorosphere rent-a-crowd land in your moral calculus for trying to use kids as human shields?)
Haha. He said “soros” as if that has anything to do with anything but white-nationalism, and anti-semitic white-trash. When are you going to throw out “globalist” to match? Pro tip: google “World War II.” Your line of thought didn’t end so well for its adherents.
this is to “ya know, these protocols of the elders of zion are a good read, I think” tabbie
Marky Mark Mark – wherein the NPCs script goes completely bonkers and hits a severe glitch in the coding.
Jay S – the group seems to be getting larger and more hostile. They have already burned down a Mexican Immigration building. Some are heavily armed. This is an army fronted by children, women and old people.
Excellent. Yet another delusional Pravda Faux News bot. What about the gang-bangers, arab terrorists and globalist sinister jews? When are you gonna light that candle? Pro tip: making an embarrassment of yourself just makes an embarrassment of yourself.
this is to “maybe we oughta build some more concentration camps; those eight-year-olds can be pretty dangerous” paulie – georgie
Marky Mark Mark – wherein the NPC refuses to recognize reputable news sources and tries to kill the messenger. All to no avail. Messenger survives.
The Mexican government noted what you said as did one of the officials of the Honduran government. A possibility of violence exists especially with weapons known to be in the hands of some of the group. The encouragement provided by others, whether it be leftists, members of the drug cartels, leftist lawyers etc., will be the cause of any violence and death that occurs. If the border were properly sealed and the law followed that march would not occur.
As they have done before, the “troops” will take over administrative and logistics support roles, allowing professional Homeland Security personnel to move to the border.
militarytimes.com: “PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.
That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.
Instead, their role will largely mirror that of the existing National Guard troops — about 2,000 in all — deployed to the border over the past six months, including providing helicopter support for border missions, installing concrete barriers and repairing and maintaining vehicles. The new troops will include military police, combat engineers and helicopter companies equipped with advanced technology to help detect people at night.”
Also, before you allow your imagination to run wild, try Google.
To some degree, late-term pregnant women have travelled to the United States for the purpose of giving birth to establish birthright. My question is whether that is fraud and, if so, should the 14th stand in those cases?
While they’re at it, a deeply conservative Supreme Court could re-impose the Dred Scott ruling. This would essentially disenfranchise anyone with a black ancestor who was a slave. Surely that would ensure the thousand year White Reich.
While they’re at it, a deeply conservative Supreme Court could re-impose the Dred Scott ruling.
Dred Scott was based on substantive due process. See Robert Bork on substantive due process. Originalists and textualists have no time for it.
First of all, what reasonable argument can be made that an individual(s) should benefit anything by violating our federal laws? We should call it the fruit of the poisonous loins doctrine. I find it difficult to believe the 14th amendment was intended to dangle a U.S. citizenship carrot to anyone that successfully and illegally set foot on U.S. territory.
This should be clarified through the normal lawmaking process and not by E.O. Either way, it will be challenged in court and eventually make it’s way to SCOTUS. They could really remove all doubt and make birthright citizenship only for those children born of at least one parent having U.S. citizenship.
“. I find it difficult to believe the 14th amendment was intended to dangle a U.S. citizenship carrot to anyone that successfully and illegally set foot on U.S. territory.”
That would be bad public policy and I believe cases have been decided based on that alone.
No Constitutional amendment is required. All we need is a ruling from the Supreme Court that goes to the original intent and understanding of the amendment. I’ll bet heavily that the Professor has got it flat out wrong. The notion that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has no meaning is idiotic on it’s face. Sorry Turley, but your analysis would warrant an “F” in my class.
“All we need is a ruling from the Supreme Court that goes to the original intent”
Unfortunately, Ivan we have some on the Supreme Court that don’t believe in deciding based on the Constitution preferring to make decisions based on what feels good to them.
Again, 14th Amendment jurisprudence is humbug and the federal courts should be stripped of jurisdiction in such matters. We would be better off if the 14th Amendment were simply ignored by all parties.
Are you saying that people should feel free to disregard any parts of the Constitution that they don’t like ? That is, we should not be a nation of laws?
In case you hadn’t noticed, Jay, the appellate courts have been using the 14th Amendment as an excuse to impose their own discretion for the discretion of legislative bodies for at least 60 years now. Any liberals bothered by that? And, while we’re at it, the undeniable implication of discrete delegations of power to Congress is that powers not mentioned are not delegated. The ‘necessary and proper’ clause refers to conduits to exercise delegated powers. Waaal, for > 85 years, this distinction between delegated and non-delegated powers has been ignored. Any liberals bothered by that? And, while we’re at it, since 1942, the courts have maintained the fiction that the distinction between inter-state and intra-state commerce is factitious as is the distinction between commerce and productive activity. Any liberals bothered by that?
The answers are no, and no, and no. “The Constitution” as a binding law does not exist. It’s just an incantation appellate judges use in imposing their preferences. We might in some future time have a Constitution which binds. That requires appellate judges and their shallow smart-assed clerks be something other than frauds. Which they aren’t.
The last honest liberal was Raoul Berger.
So, are you disregarding any laws you don’t like?
It’s currently being done for your benefit, Jay. You gonna give it up or no?
This is a great issue for the Republicans. As usual, the Dems are on the losing side but they can’t see past their own nose. Who actually thinks that it makes sense that any foreigner should have the right to travel here so that their newborn can magically become a US citizen? This is comedy gold.
Well, anyone who has read the United States Constitution?
this is to “we don’t need no stinkin’ constitution, we have a clown!” ivan
What if only one parent was undocumented, as may be the case with Donald Trump’s children?
That’s an easy one. The child will be an American obviously.
Samantha, The President was a citizen (therefore the point is moot) and was married to Melania. Melania Trump is a naturalized citizen and was never an illegal alien.
It appears to me what the founders intended when wrote this Amendment. Was- There should be no restitutions on the birthright of illegal allies, and there will be no legal way to keep illegals out of the United States. Therefore, they had no interest of creationing a solvent nation and all the words were just for penmanship.
Founders did not envision a welfare state. The dynamics have changed.
Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States was an important point in the debate May 30th 1866. If anyone is interested in reading the original statements from the Congressional Globe start at the center column, Mr. Howard.
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00122890.tif
” the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.
It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law.”
“When asked whether Native Americans would automatically be citizens under the clause, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”
So President Trump is not proposing to “amend” the Constitution by executive order. He is proposing to faithfully enforce the Constitution as written…”
https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/revoking-birthright-citizenship-would-enforce-the-constitution/
Allan – Ann Coulter’s article today says much the same, except she cites some SCOTUS case. And the fact that they had to make Indians citizens by a separate law.
OMG….Ann Coulter?!?!
And here we admired you up until now
tsk tsk…🤡
Anonymous – Ann Coulter is one of JT’s students, too. 😉 The only difference is she is solvent and not under criminal investigation.
Paul, you provided knowledge of a legitimate article from a legitimate point of view, but then one of no name decided to demean the author rather than argue about what the author said. For that reason I will post the entire article so that the one of no name or anyone else can easily pick out and quote what in that column distresses her most and why. That seems to be the sensible thing to do.
THE TRUE HISTORY OF MILLSTONE BABIES
October 31, 2018
Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.
In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.
Such is the case today with “anchor babies” and “birthright citizenship.” People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.
If you’d like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!
Of course the president can end the citizenship of “anchor babies” by executive order — for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.
It’s just something everyone believes to be true.
How could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?
The first question would be: Why would they do that? It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?
The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the “main object” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment “was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes,” making them “citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”
Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!
You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!
YOU MEAN THAT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?
Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.
You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!
As the court has explained again and again and again:
“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”
That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.
The 14th Amendment fixed that.
The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.
Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?
Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.
But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about “civil rights,” you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.
Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans — the very people the amendments were written to protect!
Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.”
It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.”
This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.
Left-wing activists seized on Brennan’s aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.
No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote.
Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won’t be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.
It’s often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.
Allan – thank you for cutting and pasting Ann’s article. I would have done it, but no one asked.
You are welcome Paul. I just wanted to give the one with no name an opportunity to review and thoughtfully state what her objections to the article were rather than just listening to her insults. I don’t think we will get to hear those objections because I don’t think they existed.
To judge by the debate Turley links to, in which Sen. Howard of Michigan takes part, concern about immigration was actually of enough concern that the amendment’s supporters needed to refute the era’s nativists. Note Senator Cowan’s speech that starts on the same page and continues. He raises the question of whether birthright citizenship is appropriate for the children of immigrant ethnic groups, especially Chinese folk working in California and Gypsies living in Pennsylvania, that he finds objectionable. Then Sen. Coness of California points out that the Chinese are making a valued contribution of labor to his state and that because immigrants from China are mostly male, aren’t producing many US-born children. He calls into question Cowan’s description of Gypsies, suspecting that is based on ignorance. Finally, Coness declares that birthright citizenship is already the law of the land because of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Sen. Howard of Michigan makes no correction to Sen. Coness’ remarks.
He calls into question Cowan’s description of Gypsies, suspecting that is based on ignorance.
Gypsy populations are suffused with criminal syndicates.
Notwithstanding the absolute birthright position, I think you do at least have to address what is means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” which could change with immigration laws. As I understand current immigration laws, even illegal aliens not born here are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.. Also, I will like to see how those who want to eviscerate the 2nd Amendment based upon the “regulated militia” clause and “guns were different then” refute those same arguments in the context of the 14th Amendment.
Exactly !! If the “undocumented” or “illegal aliens” are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” then how could they be arrested for any crime or offense, or even picked up for deportation?
Re the 2nd amendment, the court bent over backwards to declare the “well-regulated militia” phrase irrelevant with respect to firearms rights. But a similar court would no doubt find all sorts of hidden meaning in the “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” phrase.
Hypocrisy, much?
They haven’t ‘bent over backwards’. You try to find an example of the phrase ‘the right of the people’ in contemporaneous organic laws being used to refer to anything but a personal right. What ‘a well regulated militia’ tells you is that the authors were referring to military arms.
This may a longstanding “debate,” but that says nothing about whether it has been, or is being, conducted in good faith. The fact that there have been nativist bigots in the US prior to and since the Civil War does not grant nativist bigotry some sort of legitimacy.
Textualist and originalist scholars agree: birthright citizenship is limited only by the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This applies to three classes of people: 1) children of diplomats; 2) children of invading armies; and 3) members of particular native tribes who were by law not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
That a relative handful of outliers has attempted to expand the meaning to include the objects of their own bigotry does not mean there are good faith grounds for disagreement, but it does reveal much about the nature of these supposed scholars – and of those who carry their water.
Some constitutional questions are difficult; some are debatable; this is neither.
If the 14th Amendment had been intended to apply to almost everyone born in the US, Congress would never have had to pass the Dawes Act in1887 and Indian Citizenship Act in 1924.
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 5.
What’s your basis for claiming “aliens” and “children of invading armies” are synonymous and limited to that singular meaning?
I never made that claim. The 14th Amendment does not mention aliens, only those not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
As to the children of invading armies see, as one example, Professor Somin’s discussion: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/30/birthright-citizenship-and-the-constitut
You definitely inferred the claim by how you presented your position. You wrote “[t]his applies to three classes of people,” and then you listed them. In so doing, you chose to cite one portion of the following paragraph and ignore another. And, since you noted the 14th Amendment does not mention aliens, it’s fair to note it doesn’t mention children of invading armies either.
“While Wong Kim Ark involved legal immigrants, the logic of the Court’s holding is not limited to that scenario. It applies to children of undocumented immigrants, as well, and indeed to all children born on US soil, other than those of foreign diplomats, soldiers of invading armies, and (at the time) certain members of Indian tribes. As Ho describes, the Court’s ruling in that case was backed by the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Senator Jacob Howard, one of the key drafters of the amendment, stated that eligibility for birthright citizenship “will not, of course, include [children of] persons 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” (emphasis added).”
Note that “aliens” may or may not have the limited meaning of “children of invading armies.” If it does, then the argument as presented in the article is correct. If, however, it doesn’t, and instead applies to people in the U.S. who aren’t lawful permanent residents–as Wong’s parents were–especially those classified as illegal aliens, then the issue remains open. Note: the correct term is illegal alien, both by definition and by law; all immigrants are legal and documented. Also, you may choose to suggest those who disagree with your position are nativist bigots and not arguing in good faith, but that says more about you than it says about those on the other side of the argument. This issue will remain unsettled–legally–unless and until the Supreme Court issues a ruling on it. Even if that happens, the losing side is unlikely to stop promoting its arguments. Regardless, it won’t make either side nativist bigots, and it won’t make the other side whatever term you might use to describe those who aren’t nativist bigots.
I see you couldn’t be bothered to read the linked article. Nor, apparently, the 14th Amendment. Not much more I can do to help you out.
Totally awesome work, fiver.
Keep it coming.
Diane, while not referencing any specific posts your standards are very low. I keep hearing you saying “awesome work” to anyone that might have a semblence of agreement with you whether based on an intelligent remark made or stupidity. The only criteria seems to be agreement with you in order to bolster your ego. I guess in your world quality doesn’t count.
fiver:
Bad analysis by the prof. Jurisdiction doesn’t merely mean jurisdiction in criminal matters as is suggested. Otherwise, every cartel scum caught sneaking across the border would have claim on US citizenship as would all illegals. It means jurisdiction in other areas too like voting. Illegals can still vote in their native land and by virtue of their citizenship by blood so can the kids of illegals who are born here. Thus complete jurisdiction is not possible in the US. The Elk case is instructive since there an American Indian born in the US was denied citizenship based on tribal jurisdiction even though the US had some jurisdiction over him as well. It’s simply bad policy to let criminals and their offspring benefit from the crime.
Keep swinging there fiver, at least you’re keeping your cheerleader L4D jumping.
Bad analysis by Mespo. Submitting to the jurisdiction of The United States is not the same thing as being subject to the jurisdiction of The United States. Otherwise we would have granted citizenship to Putin’s Chef, Mr. Prigozhin, when we indicted him even though he has still refused to show up in court barefoot and pregnant.
Huh? What? Make that last part about Mariia Butina, instead.
Surely the question involves the native-born offspring of foreign-born persons both being subject to the jurisdiction of The United States without necessarily submitting to said jurisdiction. Otherwise we all might have to reach voting age before any of us native-born Americans became citizens.
Ummmm, no. Not even close. Neither “cartel scum,” nor anyone else, gains citizenship merely by sneaking across the border. Presence on U.S. soil is sufficient to make someone subject to U.S. jurisdiction (with some exceptions such as diplomats), but citizenship also requires that someone be born or naturalized in the United States as well as being subject to its jurisdiction.
It’s all right there in the 14th Amendment. Here’s a link; you should check it out sometime. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
You might also wish to check out the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” Here’s a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction
You’re welcome
Fiver….you are correct but I doubt the so called “originalist” or “anti judicial activism” crowd will care at all. Trump wants what he wants and I’m not convinced at all that the alleged conservative members will do anything but bow to their leader. Professor’s Truley’s Faith in SCOTUS as it is now constituted is misplaced.
Holmes, I just checked the Constitution. It said nothing about permitting babies born to illegal aliens and criminals the right to citizenship. Not providing them citizenship would not be an activist ruling.
The only people who use phrases like ‘nativist bigots’ are intellectual and moral frauds who should be ignored. You can debate the issues or you can strike poses. You elect to do the latter. Do the country a favor by leaving and never returning.
So sorry to offend, Cinderella, but you’re the one who chose to try on the glass slipper and found that it fit so well.
I’ll certainly not leave my home and my country at the request of some anonymous commenter on the internet, but I will do my best to stay away from your side of the trailer park.
Have a nice day.
So sorry to offend, Cinderella,
No, you’re not. If you didn’t want to offend, you wouldn’t have run that script.
but you’re the one who chose to try on the glass slipper and found that it fit so well.
You impugn someone’s motives and character and it’s their fault.
I’ll certainly not leave my home and my country
You’re a parasitoid wasp. This isn’t your country, just a place you live in to leech off and trash.
DSS with another alias and more bad reasoning, will it never change?
“…it never change?” -YNOT
Nope.
“…will it never change?” -YNOT
Nope.
Very nicely phrased; couldn’t agree more.
Completely and totally awesome work.
I should miss stuff like fiver’s more often.
With an EO and one of the trained monkey District court judges that will issue a nation wide ban, he gets a twofer. Justice Thomas has been looking for a nation-wide ban to run on.
“ President Donald Trump is wrong to try to do this with an executive order.”
That is an open question, but the President is right to try to protect the American people from illegal entries into our country. It is a national security issue. I think if the SC voted based on the intention of the 14th Amendment then that would preclude birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. However, the SC is made up of different people so one doesn’t know how it would play out in front of the SC.
If Trump believes that the meaning of the 14th Amendment is such that births to illegals do not have citizenship rights, then that can be challenged and end up in the Supreme Court. But he has that right to interpret to mean that and issue an executive order on such. The 2 key phrases are: 1866: “All persons born in the United States (and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed), are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” and the 14th Amendment in 1868: (subject to the jurisdiction thereof).
I believe the President is right and the Supreme Court will hold up such meaning.
By the very acknowledgement by DJT that the “law”needs to be changed by Executive Order means that the wording of the 14th Amendment prevails.One cannot nullify an interpretation of the Constitution by EO.I agree with the Perfesser that judicial clarification is required.Would Senator Graham’s initiative be “For greater certainty…”?
This is another example of Trump’s tactics of inventing problems. Rapists are flooding in. ISIS is among the caravan from Honduras. Lie after lie, exaggeration after exaggeration; all to create a crisis situation where the voter will stick with the status quo, or switch to support ‘The only one who can fix it.’ This is the scenario used by dictators who get elected but then design the crises. Trump is a carnival barker and liar extraordinaire. The only thing missing is the toothbrush mustache. There are enough dupes to get sucked in to this.
The abuse of birthright citizenship does exist. However creating a crisis out of occasional abuses in order to garner votes is disgusting. A woman arriving illegally to have a baby and initiate immigration procedures for herself and her husband, children, whomever, can be dealt with without executive orders and changing the Constitution. A many times more necessary part of the Constitution that should be addressed, clarified, rewritten, is the second amendment. Trump is making political hay. Trump is a scumbag.
Dems are scumbag so there
“Petty. Shallow. Mean-spirited. Narcissistic. Thin-skinned. Vindictive. Factually adrift. This is the media’s take on President Trump. Alas, all of these descriptors apply to them as well. Trump keeps calling them out, and Americans keep noticing.
That the media and Trump are two sides of the same coin has become so obvious that even Jon Stewart, not someone you might describe as non-partisan, much less pro-Trump, is saying it. In an interview in which Stewart and Dave Chappelle sat down with CNN’s (congenitally insufferable) Christiane Amanpour, Stewart noted:
I think that journalists have taken it personally. They’re personally wounded and offended by this man. He baits them, and they dive in. And what he’s done well, I thought, is appeal to their own narcissism, to their own ego. Because what he says is, “These are the . . .” — and the journalists stand up and say, “We are noble. We are honorable. How dare you, sir?” And they take it personally. And now he’s changed the conversation to not that his policies are silly or not working or any of those other things; it’s all about the fight. He’s able to tune out everything else and get people just focused on that fight. And he’s going to win that fight. [Emphasis added.]
Trump keeps saying the media’s hostility to him is unprecedented, and they keep proving it. The media keep saying Trump’s hostility to them is unprecedented, and he keeps proving it. The two sides deserve each other. There are no victims here. It’s a fight between aggression addicts. It’s an Iran–Iraq War of words.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/donald-trump-media-war-two-sides-same-coin/
@issacbasonkavich
Abuse doesn’t exist? You are kidding right? Birth tourism advertising tour packages to come to America and give birth is a flourishing industry in certain parts of the world and you know it. But you don’t care.
Do you think people should be able to sneak into Mexico, China, France, UK or Israel and give birth to a new “citizen” with absolutely no objections from the host country?
Let me guess, you probably think I am a really evil bigot for even questioning the practice. But I don’t care what you or any other s##tlib thinks.
antonio
The 14th Amendment did not include native Americans. That is a big exception for 40+ years.
They were too busy raping, pillaging and plundering each other to merit any due process.
Import anyone into this country who is driven to work hard, is loyal to their family and seeks to contribute to the common good of the nation,
Export 10 Americans in turn for the one immigrant as described who is not driven to work hard, is disloyal to their family and fellow neighbor, and seeks to take from the common welfare of the nation.
IOW, work to eat otherwise be deported regardless of where you were born
“For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living”
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12