Birthright citizenship: bravo to President Trump!

Posted by  $  Temlakos 1 month, 1 week ago to Politics
121 comments | Share | Flag

Donald J. Trump now proposes to end birthright citizenship by executive order. He is well within his authority and must act to settle this once and for all.

Comments?
SOURCE URL: https://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2018/10/31/constitution/birthright-citizenship-bravo-trump/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by preimert1 1 month, 1 week ago
    There is a bird called a cowbird that lays an egg in another birds nest and forces the surrogate momma bird to raise it at the expense of her own brood. Sound familiar?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 1 week ago
      Kind of a Hillary "It takes a village." attitude there. So if a US citizen couple has a baby, that baby must be raised by the people of the USA? Where is the human individuality with you? Being born under the laws of the USA does not imply being raised by the USA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 month, 1 week ago
    The author of the 14th amendment stated he did not mean for birthright citizenship to apply to foreigners, but the explicit exemption is not in the text. The case commonly used to illustrate the right is that of an American-born Chinese denied reentry after visiting China, which the SCOTUS ruled was a violation of his birthright. One problem: both of his parents were legal immigrants with the intent to become naturalized citizens.

    The "loophole" the President is leaning on is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Some legal scholars point to that as relying on potential changes to immigration law. However, laws can't be imposed by executive order, as other presidents have discovered. Immigration law is the responsibility of Congress, and Senator Graham has stated he plans to introduce a law that "clarifies" the birthright citizenship issue to apply only to the offspring of legal immigrants.

    To me the issue of the child's citizenship matters less than what happens as a result, which is unfettered chain migration well beyond immediate family. If Congress changes the immigration laws to restrict the chain to immediate family only, then the issue becomes less important.

    While they're at it, Congress should restore the guest worker program, institute mandatory E-Verify, and tighten the vetting screws on the lottery immigrant system. There are probably a few more "tuning" changes to the immigration system that need to be done, but those I cited are a good start.

    As for the wall, I have a proposal: Because some areas of the border have unique ecosystems that could be damaged by a non-stop wall. Deploy these systems with human detectors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmuyL... at the locations where a wall might cause problems.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
      Just eliminate the goodies that drive immigrants here. Minimum wages much higher than what they get in their home country, welfare goodies, etc. Remove those, and the unwashed would stop coming.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 1 month, 1 week ago
    Nothing I have read in the Constitution gives any illegal aliens birthright protections. Just because previous admins have blatantly allowed it does not make it the law. Misinterpretation of the Constitution is exactly why the SCOTUS needs to rule on this and the Congress needs to push it to them. Righting wrongs is what I had high hopes of from DJT
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
    Good riddance to birthright citizenship when both parents arent even legal residents. How can they be deemed to be under the jurisdiction of any state of the USA if they illegally crossed into the usa.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 1 week ago
      You are under the jurisdiction of a state whenever you are with in its boundaries. Different laws in each state. If born in Wisconsin are you a citizen of Wisconsin which sticks with you for life? The place of birth is an accident for a baby and does not give the baby anything other than the protection of the law for that area as it does for an illegal who must obey the laws of the state and the USA. Citizenship gives the government extra control over a person so that it can do more or less force against the person. Do you have birthright citizenship? What does that even mean for a child of two citizens or a citizen and a non citizen or two non citizens or for two citizens adopting a child who was not born in the USA? Are you somehow a citizen if you leave the USA for some period of time and get tainted by some other society, legally or illegally, of the world before returning? The legality of the parents does not affect the child who is an individual subject to the laws of the state or possession of the USA. If it is not a citizen it does not exist or is like Philip Nolan to be shuttled around the world with no country? In the story, Nolan was a citizen and then not a citizen for a matter of his opinion about the USA. Even life sentence prisoners retain citizenship but are not allowed to exorcise liberty. Just as a child born to parents of a religion does not make the child a child of that religion, who are your parents does not make you an individual with their beliefs.
      The whole problem with citizenship concerns is the belief that the government must take care of the child from birth to death, caring for health, education, employment, protection, and everything else about its life. That is the only fear that causes concern about non citizens' children being citizens.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
        How about you apply on your 18th birthday for "citizenship" (you cant vote anyway under 18). you would need to not be a felon, have a job or means of support, and have some skills and be willing to stick up for the USA values.

        Forget the automatic citizenship thing totally. If you want to vote, you need to have some desire to be responsible with that vote.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
          The late Robert A. Heinlein proposed something more radical than that: you get your voting citizenship after you have served a term in either military or other life-on-the-line service. Even something as passive as volunteering for an inoculation with a deadly disease would qualify--or some kind of ultra-hazardous engineering job.

          Of course, Heinlein also figured the only way that could come about, would be after a total social collapse--in which the veterans would take over, set up vigilance committees, and allow no one to serve on those committees who hadn't served with them.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
            I liked that idea actually. I think it doesnt need to be military, but the idea is to make citizenship the result of a serious commitment to the country. I think that is good.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 1 week ago
              You are not allowed to take private vengeance for wrongs done to you; you have to delegate that remedy to the government. That should be already enough for one who is born here.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                It’s essentially an agreement that all members treat each other with respect in accordance with our nature as human beings. Without delving into heavy duty philosophy, objectivism really contains all the principles that allow for people to interact peacefully and productively
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
              That was Heinlein's notion. It didn't have to be military, so long as it required you to put your life on the line. (Exception: law enforcement, which that society restricted to citizens.) The society would even invent ways for people to volunteer to serve. As one example: the idea of using convicts to volunteer for disease exposure to win release was dead. Now free civilians would volunteer for such a project in order to win their votes.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                It would be great if the senate and house could agree on immigration reform. BUT. The Democrats will vote as a block for open borders ONLY , and that’s bad for the country. If trump does it by exec order, it will wind up in the Supreme Court, Bottom line is nothing will change for years
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 1 week ago
          The USA not being a person, has no values. What are those USA values that you believe belong to every citizen?
          You would have to increase the size of the FBI greatly background check every 18 year old to find out whether they have all the attributes that you believe necessary for citizenship. Would have to be like the sign up for the draft at 18. Fill out a card and send it in, else, as a male, never get a job again for not sighing up.
          An individual vote is meaningless unless the vote for or against is within one vote. So the fear must be that some person might vote whom you do not like. For some reason, it seems that those members of some group with certain ideas would like to vote themselves some goodies to be feared by other groups. The USA is not a democracy, so stop trying to get favors, goodies, and power over those you do not like. Laws can take care of the uncivil who use force against others. When did your vote ever determine anything other than the good feeling of "I have voted, so I am therefore good."
          There is not tipping point leading to an Atlas Shrugged disaster. Some of those in the Gulch seem to believe that the USA is balanced on a precipice where a little unbalance will send it into an Atlas Shrugged world. Just read Atlas Shrugged for the philosophical ideas and stop getting alienated by trying to emulate, and failing to do so, the heroes of the novel. Being lost in a novel will reap only bitter fruit.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
            Sounds like you would prefer not to Live in a country at all, but just occupy a place in the land with whoever lives around you.

            The whole idea of living in a neighborhood or a country is that you are surrounded by people who think like you do. It’s like living in a large gated HOA with certain agreed on rules

            For that to be meaningful, you need borders and agreed on rules (values).

            You can want no borders and unfettered immigration of people of different cultures if it makes you feel good. I just don’t want to live in such a place

            In case you haven’t noticed, AS May have been written as a novel, buts turned more into a dicumejtary
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 1 month, 1 week ago
              Rules are not values. They might stand in for allowed virtues which are ways of getting values. A person's values are none of my business, how those values are obtained may possibly be my business when force is used against me.
              For those who live by me, I want anyone who keeps his ways of pleasuring himself, physically including his music, partying, and arguing and fighting , on his own property.
              All the HOAs that I am familiar with were done by developers. There are associations which are ways to get money from property owners for some community projects such as roads or water and sewer. Why be limited to a set of rules on how your property can be used, how you can paint your house, what roofing it must have, how often to mow your lawn, what landscaping you can have, when you are free to come and go through the gate, etc. Why would you want to live in a situation where you can be voted into selling your property requiring moving somewhere else. The HOA security officers will have to keep close tabs on you. If there is trouble with the current laws, what is the chance that they can be repealed and that more comfortable laws will spring into existence?
              There are two main ways to become under the command of a dictatorship: Divide and conquer with being in the wrong division, and unite and rule. There can be also the one from Atlas Shrugged of 'sanction of the victim' where one's thoughts can end in being leashed to society in a subservient way.
              Why limit yourself to those who think like you? Kind of a limited way to live.
              Nowhere have I Indicated not wanting any borders. A border is nothing but a set of laws which one has to obey within that geographic area to which the laws apply. Law requires some agent of force to administer it, private government or some other form like the US government. One is stuck with laws which may even be inhuman such as in North Korea or to a somewhat lesser extent in china where a small amount of Capitalism has freed the lives of some of the people a little.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                So if you want borders, what requirements are there in your view are required to enter the country, and also to have a vote
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 1 month ago
                  There is a geographic border whenever the interior of that border has a government of laws different from the surrounding border areas. Without governments the borders would be arbitrary and freely crossable but perhaps gang protected as in some cities where a gang carves out territory within the city.
                  The laws of the government controlled areas must be obeyed within the area after crossing the border. Immigration laws applicable to those who cross the border may or may not be applied. Laws of citizenship and permission to vote can be made to control those who cross without permission and want to stay. There is a large range, from death to welcoming anyone, in border laws. Those of the USA are fairly lax, with birthright citizenship and very inclusive to citizenship of children born out of the country to citizens of the USA.
                  Do birthright children, say from Mexico, have dual citizenship with Mexico or do children of USA citizens have dual citizenship with the country in which they are born? I would like it to be that citizenship depends upon the country in which one lives though law would visa or passport would be needed to return to one's other country. That implies that one is not free to travel without government permission. Within a country various subsets of laws are usually relax enough for travel without specific permission from the laws, though the laws of the country must give permission or not legislate in any way about travel freedom.
                  I would say that anyone living under the laws of a country is a citizen of that country. Whether one will be permitted to vote will depend upon certain conditions of the life of the citizen, such as, ability to provide for oneself or be provided for by private charity, not being a criminal or violating non criminal law, etc., depending upon the laws. Whether the laws are rational or not is another matter. I would say that it is not too strict to require that a visa be required and then working to be a voting citizen. That may even leave out the majority of citizens. Citizenship does not necessarily imply permission to vote for representatives for the constitutional republic, the
                  USA.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                    If we have a border it’s like a fence around your house and should be treated the same way
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by lrshultis 1 month ago
                      Not close, e.g., no freedom of speech in your little safe space, where you would dictate what is said, though freedom of speech against the government of the USA could be exempted by you on your property. That last is the right of any property owner who does not desire to limit constitutional rights on his property but perhaps, it is possible to not recognize The Bill of Rights while confined to the your own property.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                        The reason for bringing up a fence around my property is that it is my decision about who to allow to come on the property- if its indeed private property.

                        If a mob of people want to come on my property, they need to get my approval BEFORE they are allowed in ( the way we protect ourselves from thieves and murderers).

                        If there is a group of people who get together and agree to put a wall around their respective houses, I propose that to enter the group compound, you need to get the approval of the inhabitants who put the wall up and own the properties.

                        If people use violence to just enter my property, I can tell you what will happen to them, and they most likely will never do that again.

                        I said nothing about freedom of speech, so I dont know why you are bringing that issue up. I am talking about physically occupying my property.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                    I propose that citizenship is like joining a club of people who agree on certain acceptable interpersonal relationships. Non members wanting to join the club would have to be accepted by the existing members before joining. I think people could also be provisionally accepted for a time
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by lrshultis 1 month ago
                      Remember a club can easily tell a member who does not follow every rule or says some wrong club ideas to get lost. The citizens of the USA can not boot citizens out for speech against the USA or for any other infraction of the rules except for treason.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by term2 1 month ago
                        Home Owners Associations do a good job though. When you buy into the area (or become a citizen), you agree to the rules and remedies. I dont think speech is a basis for expulsion, but treason that is very specifically denoted could be a reason for revoking citizenship and voting privileges
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Solver 1 month ago
                        Not even the betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts, gets you thrown out these days.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month ago
            I had the idea of voluntary associations; nobody would have to go to them; but we could offer English lessons, and could also teach American history to immigrants, and hope to persuade them to believe in individual rights, freedom of conscience (i.e., separation of church and state,etc.) I believe this used to be done a lot before in past times.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by lrshultis 1 month ago
              The most important thing is to instill a rational self in anyone with the capacity to have one, though that would require very great changes in parenting and schooling and even getting away from such things as Sunday School, Boy Scouts, and any other altruistic education during the formative years. From that comes rights, conscience, etc. I consider Sheldon on "Big Bang Theory" to be a model of a selfless human though, most of those here would say that he is being very selfish. He does not seem to have a rational self. Everything needs to be provide by others for him, his self esteem, his environment, etc.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month ago
                Yes. (Though I don't know anything about "Big Bang Theory". Is it a TV show?) Of course, we could not control what the immigrant people taught their children at home; but maybe we could teach the people who would come about Objectivism, and also some values that were in our free-enterprise past (Horation Alger books, etc.) This would be of course in competition with other organizations; maybe we'd have to to things such as offer services at lower rates or even free (for the sake of our cause, it should be worth it); but we could succeed. (At least, with some).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
    Applauding the violation of the Constitution by a sitting president is something I'm not apt to do. The Amendments are law and laws in this country require an act of congress to alter, append or repeal. If Trump wants to be impeached he'll continue along this line because he is blatantly violating the separation of powers and acting beyond his authority as POTUS.

    I do not see Trump as a conservative but certainly do not see him a fool. I suspect this is his way of getting Congress to talk about the issue and to force them to get off their asses on this subject.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      I'd go along with what you said above--if you can cite the case that says birthright citizenship is an automatic right that applies even to those born on American soil to persons lacking an immigration visa. That's all. Cite just one case on point.

      Sometimes when you just don't know what's Constitutional or not, because courts haven't decided, you just do it and let someone sue you. Then and only then will the courts even have something to decide.

      This is one of those times.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
        I never said the present interpretation is correct. I am against birthright citizenship. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are part of the post civil war Reconstruction era where southern democrats attempted to keep freed slaves from participating in American society as full citizens. It was never intended to, and there has even been case law showing, that it does not apply to illegal aliens.

        Even so, a law, any law, requires Congress to alter, append or repeal. There is a process in place and it was put in place for reason (checks and balances)

        I will never support the violation of the Constitution or a POTUS's attempt to violate his oath of office. Again, I do think this was to get people talking and congress acting.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by craigerb 1 month, 1 week ago
          You've got it backwards. It not the case that you are a citizen of the U. S. unless a law says you aren't. Instead, you are a citizen of the U. S. only if a law says you are. Children of parents that are not citizens of the U. S. are SUBJECTS of the sovereign of their parents (not subjects of the U. S.).
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 1 week ago
    Last night me dino was in a Halloween night mood switching channels between (seen it before) The Evil Dead) and Tucker Carlson followed by Hannity. Can't recall from which show that I learned that well-to-do Russians and other foreigners will fly in, have a baby and fly back nursing an American citizen.
    Now me dino thinks of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPeP...
    Not that I think Arnold is an anchor baby who can exploit his citizenship here later on. Me dino read long time ago that he came over the correct way as an adult..
    As for The Evil Dead, it was scary the first time I saw it. Now I laugh at it. Watched more Hannity than Carslon for some reason. Harrumph!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 1 month, 1 week ago
    The Constitution states to assign citizenship to "resident aliens'" children if born in the USA.

    It is not saying "Illegal aliens".

    Big difference.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
      I read an interpretation where the domicile of the parents would be the determining factor. In other words, if the parent are not legal residents then their offspring cannot be legal citizens.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
        That would conform with the full intent of Donald Trump's executive order--and Senator Lindsey Graham's proposed legislation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
          that's already established case law...I can't recall the name offhand but if true there is no need for the executive overreach except to kickoff the discussion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
            The discussion is just what we need. The question is: where does the law and Constitution now stand? And I can't think of a better time to bring this before the Court--a Court containing Messrs. JJ Roberts (CJ), Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch--and Kavanaugh.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
    I want to see him do it. And then I want the Democrats to appeal to the Supreme Court and win. Here's why.

    Article I of the Constitution discusses the enumerated powers of Congress, among which are the express control of immigration and naturalization. ANY executive branch position which attempts to usurp or override this needs to be smacked down hard and I think this alone was grounds for impeachment of President Obama.

    Here's why: if the Supreme Court limits the powers of the Presidency and Executive Actions by declaring Trump's well-meaning but unConstitutional action void, it also by the same ruling nullifies DACA and implicates the Democratic Party's open-borders policies as being anti-American. It also puts the onus back on Congress to make the necessary changes to our immigration laws and policies via the proper/Constitutional channels. To me, it's a lose-win-win scenario.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Except for one thing: if you read my article (at the link in the title), you'll see my case for declaring that the "anchor baby syndrome" itself is unconstitutional. I distinguish the two cases. I say that Trump is right and Obama was wrong.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
        I don't disagree at all that "anchor baby syndrome" is unConstitutional as per the explicit text of the 14th Amendment. Illegals entering the US are subject to their home nation's jurisdiction and thus are not eligible for protection under the 14th Amendment. (The problem with this is a Supreme Court precedent set by Justice Brennan which violates this and was noticeably missing from the article.) That does not change the fact, however, that the Legislative and not the Executive Branch has responsibility for immigration and naturalization law as per the Constitution.

        Just as Obama was violating the Constitution to impose DACA on the United States via Executive Order, it would be just as unConstitutional for President Trump to unilaterally declare immigration policy - even if that policy is well-intended. The better policy is for the Legislative Branch to do its job and pass immigration reform (and I believe that several Republicans have offered legislative answers).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
          leaving it to the congress means LEAVING it period. Congress is worthless in today's divided culture. Anything good would be 100% voted down by democrats, and some number of republicans because they all want to be re-elected. Getting rid of multiple terms would be required before this logjam could be fixed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
            The Federal government wasn't created with fast action involved. It was meant to be a deliberative body - especially the Senate. Yes, I agree that our current governmental structure is dysfunctional, but that is because we have moved away from a Constitutional Republic towards more of a populist parliamentary system. Here are several suggestions I think would go a long way toward re-establishing a sound foundation:

            1) Revise the 12th Amendment and eliminate party-line balloting for President and Vice President. Return the Vice President vote to be the runner-up in the election for President. This should encourage third parties. Just as competition is good in the marketplace, I think competition is good in politics. I would love to see a real Libertarian Party, a real Consitution Party, a real Green Party, a real Blue Dog Democrat Party because I think that in and of itself would reduce the logjams. I think this would also put some teeth back into Impeachment threats of Executive players.

            2) Repeal the 17th Amendment and return to having State Legislatures appoint Senators.

            3) Increase the size of the House of Representatives dramatically. Currently, there is one vote for about every 1 million citizens. This ratio is WAY too uneven. I'd like to see the House revised to represent no more than 200,000 citizens per district. This would do much to combat gerrymandering and reduce the effectiveness of outside influence/money in House elections.

            4) Pass a campaign finance reform package stating that unless you are a member of that particular voting district, you are barred from donating money to a candidate running for office in that district. Representative government only works when those elected actually represent the interests of that locality - not special interest groups across the country. PAC's are similarly restricted: only members (and their monies) residing in a locality are allowed to air ads or participate in political activities.

            5) Restrict Cabinet positions to State (foreign diplomatic/intelligence gathering efforts/military), Treasury (taxation and spending), and Interior (FBI, national guard, parks, etc.). All others are disbanded immediately.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
              I would go for #5 immediately. #4 would just be gotten around, so probably wouldnt work. #3 would make elections much more costly, but I do agree that one rep cant possibly represent 1 million people. #2- Not sure what that would do.
              #1- That would mean Hillary would be VP. Talk about hatred and obstruction !!! Trump would give her nothing to do, and she would constantly campaign against Trump. If we are going to have a president, let him do his job, I thinnk.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                Please explain how one would "get around" #4. If one requires that the donors submit their SSN's to donate, it's pretty easy to verify citizenship and eligibility. And if you put stiff enough penalties on abrogation which effect the candidate as well...

                #3. Actually, I think you'd see the election costs drop sharply - especially if Senate elections were by State Legislatures. Why are they willing to throw so much money at a single position? Because of the concentration of power. Dilute that power and you remove the incentive by diffusing the power base.

                #2. Because of the 17th Amendment, both Senators and Congresspeople are popularly elected, meaning that they are subject to mob rule. This has also largely eroded State sovereignty because now there is no one in the Federal Government looking out for the individual interests of the States. There is no better way to reign in the Federal Government than to have the Senate returned to the hands of the States.

                #1. Any Executive Branch position can be Impeached. The primary benefit is to give third party candidates a legitimate shot at a position of power. How much of the rhetoric during the last election was all partisan? How many times did you see the "a vote for anyone but Trump is a vote for Hillary" and vice-versa. Let's allow people to actually vote for who they want - not just vote against who they don't want.

                Furthermore, it makes the threat of Impeachment actually carry some weight. Currently, power doesn't change hands. That was the Republicans primary excuse for not impeaching Obama - that Joe Biden would then become President.

                What powers exactly does the Vice President have? The main one is to preside over the Senate and break ties. But you can't think about past elections in terms of what happened, because this would only affect new elections in the future.

                "If we are going to have a president, let him do his job, I thinnk."

                The primary duty of the President is to protect the nation against all enemies - foreign and domestic. THAT is the President's job, NOT legislating with a "pen and a phone". We need to get people OUT of the habit of treating the President like a king or emperor. Once the Executive is pared back, who gets in there becomes less of an issue.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                  4. Campaign finance restrictions are so complex that politicians find ways to sell access to government one way or another. If y want to limit campaign contributions, limit the power of the government to take from one and give to another citizen

                  #3. Good point but my response to #3 would work better I think

                  Last point- president is also administrator if the bureaucracy

                  On the be 2 party system. They are really marketing organizations that are heavily brandd to cut election costs by delivering voters. Would be hard to compete with
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                    "If y want to limit campaign contributions, limit the power of the government to take from one and give to another citizen"

                    Not disputing this, but I think you are putting the cart before the horse. We can't limit the government without getting the right people in there in the first place - people who actually represent their districts and not those halfway (or more) across the country. While I would love to have an Article Five Convention of States, that solution seems stalled.

                    "Last point- president is also administrator if the bureaucracy"

                    Assuredly. But if you start limiting what the President is able to do by EO, not only do we start back on the road toward the Founders' notion of the Executive but the bureaucracies then lean toward being extensions of legislative will rather than political tools of the Executive. I don't deny that there are far too many bureaucracies, but I view an imperial executive such as that envisioned by Woodrow Wilson to be a greater threat to our sovereignty. Case in point: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

                    "On the be 2 party system. They are really marketing organizations that are heavily brandd to cut election costs by delivering voters. Would be hard to compete with"

                    I don't think they are nearly as entrenched as you think. The rise of the Tea Party movement only a decade ago was completely grass roots (before it was co-opted and destroyed by the Democrats). It gained national prominence in a very short time because it resonated across the nation. And it upended many RINO's in the elections. I also see the rise of the Libertarian party just this past election as further evidence that there is a large portion of voters who would welcome alternatives to the two-party system. I consider myself one of those disenchanted by both major parties.

                    There is also a substantial element of administrative overhead as well in the two major parties. Look at how Chairmanships are handled: you effectively pay to play by guaranteeing a certain amount of fundraising to get the position. And that money is for the Party - not the candidate! You can bet that competition here would force some dramatic changes.

                    The last point I would make is that given communications in today's age, there are no longer the needs for the bloated bureaucracies of Party mechanisms. It's far more important to have people willing to text their friends than voter mailing lists.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
            That's part of the problem President Trump faces. The other part is that he doesn't know what the Constitution allows until he tries it.

            I agree with this much: an Act of Congress would be a semi-permanent solution, that would outlast this President. Therefore Senator Graham's announcement is more than welcome.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
              He might as well try getting rid of birthright for illegal aliens and let the libs take it to court and then to the supreme court. Its a real supreme court decision.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
          Among them: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). He had an epiphany earlier this month that the Democrats wish they hadn't given him.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
            I sincerely applaud efforts to fix our broken immigration system. I haven't seen the bill, but here are the things I would put in it:

            1) an explicit end to granting citizen based on place of birth rather than nationality of parents.
            2) an explicit end to guest citizenship where a person can bring in and patriate members of their family. Citizenship must be evaluated on an individual basis.
            3) a denial of all federal funds and services to persons in the country illegally, whether that be from overstayed visas or whatever else.
            4) a denial of all federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" - those who make it a policy to harbor illegal immigrants, including interfering with legitimate legal functions such as raids, etc.
            5) en explicit end to all asylum programs. See sponsorship below.
            6) a repeal of any policy which prohibits the separation of illegal children from their parents. Each individual crossing is to be treated on their own merits - not their familial connections. Children of parents attempting illegal entry will be sent directly to the nearly consulate or embassy of the appropriate nation.

            Additional items I think would help:
            1) a sponsorship program. If you want to claim asylum, you must have a sponsor who is a US citizen or group of US citizens in good standing (meaning that they have never been convicted of a felony) to sponsor the applicant. Sponsorship means total responsibility for that individual's actions for a period of 10 years. Sponsors are responsible for paying for medical needs via insurance, housing, etc. and finding the person gainful employ. The individual would still be assayed by immigration officials according to current policy as to their fitness to enter the country.
            If the applicant commits a felony in that ten years, the sponsor is responsible for the penalties and fines and the asylum seeker is immediately deported with no chance of re-entry into the country ever. The sponsor is also prohibited from sponsoring any new applicants permanently. A sponsor may only sponsor a single applicant at a time.
            2) Build the wall. There is nothing like a physical barrier.
            3) Repeat offender laws. If you are caught in the United States illegally after having already been deported, you are put in a labor camp to work there for ten years, after which you are again deported and barred permanently from re-entry. If you commit a violent felony and are deported and then are caught again in the United States, you are summarily executed without possibility of probation or appeal. If you commit any other felony, are deported, and then caught in the US illegally again, you are sent to the labor camp for ten years and then deported and barred from re-entry.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
              There's one thing I would retain.

              Emmerich de Vattel defined one class of citizen whose loyalties are without question. He called them natural-born citizens. And contrary to everyone's assumption, a natural-born citizen is not only born in-country (or on a diplomatic or military station) but also has two citizen parents. That is, the parents must each be citizens at the time.

              Under the Constitution, only such a person is eligible to the office of President.

              Thomas Jefferson had a temporary exception made: "a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." Every other person contemporary with him, who became President, was recognized as a natural born citizen. If you were a colonial to begin with, you became a citizen when the colonies became "free and independent States."

              Chester A. Arthur skated on the NBC requirement. He hid his mother's Irish extraction from the Republican National Convention in 1880. That's the only reason he got elected Vice-President and took over as President after the assassination of James A. Garfield.

              And Barack Obama skated on that, too. His father was a British colonial subject. And his birth certificate from Hawaii is an obvious, and amateurish, forgery. I studied the PDF myself.

              John McCain was still a natural born citizen, because his parents were "on station" at the time of his birth.

              We almost nominated non-NBCs in 2016. Marco Rubio's parents didn't get naturalized until Marco was five years old. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary, and his father, a Cuban national, didn't get naturalized until Ted was an adult--if ever. Donald J. Trump is a natural-born citizen. His mother had been duly nationalized before he was born.

              John Jay (first CJOTUS) considered the NBC requirement central. He made sure Emmerich de Vattel's Law of Nations (1780) was available to all his fellow Framers.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                Our immigration and citizenship laws are very antiquated. As I understand it, some of them have to do with the emancipation of the slaves and incorporation of them into the fabric of our country during the reconstruction era. This era is LONG past done with, and we should look at the totality of immigration and citizenship from the ground up now. Only take in people from other countries based on merit and performance, and only grant citizenship and voting rights only to those people who want to continue our Constitution.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                All excellent points, well-researched! Thank you!

                I, too, believe that it is critical to have a natural-born citizen as President of the United States. In my opinion, it should also be a requirement for all House and Senate Electees and appointees to the Supreme Court as well.

                I have seen a different interpretation of natural-born citizen, however, one in which at least one parent was a citizen and the original birth certificate stating origin is the defining feature. In such cases, however, the citizen must be born in the nation to which one applies to be a citizen. Anyone born outside the US to parents both of US nationality would retain US citizenship rights - such as John McCain. Anyone born outside the US of only one parent, however, is not a citizen of the US automatically, but must submit an application to Immigration officials. (This is obviously waived for children of diplomats or members of the armed services while deployed.) My understanding is that it is under this interpretation that at least Cruz applied, but I could be mistaken. If neither of Rubio's parents were US citizens at the time of his birth, I would consider him ineligible.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
              I think your ideas are good. I do have a comment on the 'build the wall". We dont need a physical wall if we say that anyone who comes in illegally can be caught and immediately returned over the border from which they came, and can NEVER apply for residency in the USA in the future. No more catch and release. It should be catch and deport forever.

              I also think that unless you are a US citizen or a legal resident, u are not subject to minimum wage laws or other workplace remedies like unemployment insurance or workers comp. No welfare benefits or any kind, and no social security.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                I would rather dissuade them from coming here at all than go to the expense of hunting them down and deporting them. Thus the wall. I do agree to the catch and deport with no re-entry, but that policy is worthless without the wall as a first barrier.

                "I also think that unless you are a US citizen or a legal resident, u are not subject to minimum wage laws or other workplace remedies like unemployment insurance or workers comp. No welfare benefits or any kind, and no social security."

                Agreed. As you do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, neither can you appeal to such for protection. You must be referred to your consulate or embassy.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                  I think that the elimination of the minimum wage and welfare goodies would be a huge deterrent to illegal immigration of unskilled people from south america. I mean, really, why would they want to come here if business here could pay $1 an hour if they wanted. I would hire illegals for that, but the illegals would see no advantage to come here and have to pay the much higher costs of living here.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 1 week ago
                    It appears from the results that the rewards for a business hiring illegals exceed the penalties to a business for hiring illegals.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                      Of course the rewards exceed the penalties (cause there really arent any presently). We are forced currently to pay them the minimum wage, which makes it profitable for THEM to come here. We should make them ineligible for minimum wage- making it unprofitable for them to jump the vorder, live here, and endure the high living costs
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 1 month, 1 week ago
                        You're referring to the rewards to the illegals. I'm referring to the rewards to the US businesses that hire them instead of Americans. (I am not recommending that the government institute penalties on businesses as a solution, although that would be in some ways similar to Trump's higher tariff policies with government taking a cut from businesses that use foreign labor.)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
                          I was explaining that I gain by hiring so called illegals- given that they are NOT cheaper because of minimum wage, but they DO work harder than lazy and entitled americans. We, as a country, encourage illegal immigration by offering the american minimum wage and the welfare goodies available- then we complain people from other coutries come in one way or another.

                          Trumps tariffs are a way to artificially increase the value of the chinese yuan, with the excess funds just going into the rabbit hole of the USA treasure
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
          Re: "the Legislative and not the Executive Branch has responsibility for immigration and naturalization law as per the Constitution." But if the executive branch is confronted with a situation for which no guiding legislation exists, he should be free to set policy based on his interpretation of the Constitution until a law covering this situation is in place.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
            "he should be free to set policy"

            That's the same line of reasoning Woodrow Wilson advocated for a century ago, and it is as wrong now as it was then. An Imperial President - one who can create law - is the most dangerous threat to Constitutional liberty which exists, because it undermines and eradicates all the careful checks and balances of our system.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
              Setting policy is not creating law. Setting policy is what executives do. If no law exists to guide policy, the executive still cannot escape the obligation to set policy. Even doing nothing, or doing what his predecessors did, is a policy.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                "Setting policy is not creating law."

                Yes, it is. The only Constitutional role of the Executive is to carry out the laws as passed by Congress. If clarification is necessary, they should be going back to the Legislature to clarify - not simply inventing things on their own. That they have been doing it and were substantiated in this through the Supreme Court's "Chevron deference" ruling doesn't make it Constitutional.

                "the executive still cannot escape the obligation to set policy"

                Article II of the Constitution is very explicit regarding the duties of the President, and they include the following (and only the following):
                - Commander-in-Chief
                - Oversight of executive functions (cabinet positions, etc.)
                - Power to engage in treaties (subject to ratification by the Senate)
                - Power to appoint "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for" (subject to ratification by the Senate)
                - Power to fill vacancies in the above positions during Senate Recess
                - Give Congress information on the State of the Union
                - recommend measures (but not institute them)
                - Convene joint sessions of Congress
                - Receive ambassadors and other public ministers
                - Commission all Officers of the United States (meaning the Armed Forces)
                - "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

                As the Constitution was very carefully crafted to bestow a set of limited privileges and express activities to players in the Federal Government, anything not explicitly granted falls outside the Constitutional jurisdiction of that individual, branch, or body. Nowhere in Article II does it grant the President any policy-making, rule-making, or law-making authority. Constitutionally, any such activities beyond recommendations to Congress are prohibited.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
                  How can you "clarify" a non-existent law? If Congress is silent on an issue, and the Constitution's stance on that issue is unclear or disputed, the President as executive can do nothing other than implement whichever policy is consistent with his own best understanding of Constitutional meaning. In this case, Trump must either adopt a government policy of not recognizing "birthright" citizenship, or continue the policies of previous administrations and recognize "birthright" citizenship. There is no third alternative, it's either/or.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                    Your contention is that it remains within the prerogative of the Executive to take liberties with various legal questions and apply their own logic to them. Those policies and decisions then become law. This is Chevron Deference, but it is not Constitutional. Scalia, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have all pointed out that this violates the Constitution by making unelected Executive Branch bureaucrats de facto lawmakers. I agree with this interpretation.

                    The policy of granting birthright citizenship was actually the result of an erroneous Supreme Court decision which flies in the face of the 14th Amendment AND violates the separation of powers just like your proposed remedy except that it was the Supreme Court creating immigration law rather than the Executive Branch.

                    "In this case, Trump must either adopt a government policy of not recognizing "birthright" citizenship, or continue the policies of previous administrations and recognize "birthright" citizenship. There is no third alternative, it's either/or."

                    And actually in both cases it is wrong, because NEITHER are law as passed Constitutionally by the Legislative Branch of government - the ONLY branch of government with the authority to set immigration law/policy/rules. Previous Presidents who allowed birthright citizenship allowed the Supreme Court to dictate policy contrary to the Constitution - and did nothing about it.

                    I actually WANT Trump to set a rule and force a Constitutional crisis to resolve the issue. Congress has sat on their hands on this issue for 40 years and done nothing. That needs to change, but the change needs to be performed through the proper channels - not simply by executive fiat. Anytime one starts arguing to go down that road they are following Woodrow Wilson in agitating for an imperial Presidency. That is the road to tyranny.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
                      You can’t have it both ways. You say you want Trump to “set a rule”, but “the change needs to be performed through the proper channels - not simply by executive fiat.” How can Trump set a rule other than by executive fiat? And if the “proper channels” decline to act, what is Trump supposed to do in the meantime? You can’t accuse Trump of being “wrong” if no “right” choice is possible.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month ago
                        CBJ...DT tells the Republicans who are the majority that he wants this revisited and discussed to make the change. His popularity and their numbers should be sufficient to bring it to the house floor for discussion and, if there is too much contention, validate the time of SCOTUS to examine that matter and get a ruling. With the invasion drawing nearer can you think of a better catalyst for this discussion?

                        The process is deliberately slow to prevent any one branch from becoming tyrannical. An EO is not the proper solution for changing the law.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  1 month ago
                          All that is fine as far as it goes. But the Supreme Court will never rule on a hypothetical case. The Supreme Court will rule only on a real case. Absolutely nothing reaches the Supreme Court without a lawsuit or a prosecution. Typically someone "takes one for the team," by doing something in violation of the law, in the hope that the case will reach the Supreme Court (or a Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or the Judicial Circuit having jurisdiction) and he'll get a ruling that the law he "violated" was contrary to the Constitution, hence invalid.

                          And in this case we have neither statute nor prior case, and (contrary to the belief of, I would estimate, half the commenters here) no explicit provision in the Constitution that says, or implies, that the government must recognize "all persons born," regardless of circumstances, as citizens.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month ago
                          An EO is not the proper solution for changing a law, but in this particular case no law exists, and Trump is faced with the necessity of setting policy in a legal vacuum. Congress can remedy this situation whenever it likes, but until that happens it is not tyrannical of Trump to create and enforce policies to deal with this issue.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month ago
                            Actually no, an OE is a way to refine aspects of policy not shaping the Constitution. This is not a case where no law exists. The fact is it was written poorly and then interpreted in foreseeable way by its author, who opposed the final wording because it allowed vague interpretation. This why the mechanic, Congress, need go back in and ensure the wording so no interpretation is necessary. They need to change the amendment to the Constitution, a President doesnt have the authority to do this.

                            "Historically, executive orders related to routine administrative matters and to the internal operations of federal agencies, such as amending Civil Service Rules and overseeing the administration of public lands. More recently, presidents have used executive orders to carry out legislative policies and programs. As a result, the executive order has become a critical tool in presidential policy making. For example, President john f. kennedy used an executive order to eliminate racial discrimination in federally funded housing (Exec. Order No. 11,063, 3 C.F.R. 652 [1959–1963], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 1982 app. at 6-8 [1982]); President lyndon b. johnson acted through an executive order to prohibit discrimination in government contractors' hiring practices (Exec. Order No. 11,246, 3C.F.R. 339 [1964–1965], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e app. at 28-31 [1982], amended by Exec. Order No. 11,375, 3 C.F.R. 684 [1966–1970], superseded by Exec. Order No. 11,478, 3 C.F.R. 803 [1966–1970], reprinted in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e app. at 31-33 [1982]); and President richard m. nixon used an executive order to set a ninety-day freeze on all prices, rents, wages, and salaries in reaction to rising inflation and unemployment (Exec. Order No. 11,615, 3C.F.R. 602 [1971–1975], amended by Exec. Order No. 11,617, 3 C.F.R. 609 [1971–1975], superseded by Exec. Order No. 11,627, 3 C.F.R. 621 [1971–1975])."

                            Added: I shared this link below, its pretty useful
                            https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
                        You mistake my advocacy. I don't want Trump to set a rule for the purpose of setting policy. I want Trump to set a rule to expose the entire situation for what it is: dereliction of duty on the part of the Legislative Branch.

                        You seem to want Trump to act because Congress hasn't, ignoring the fact that in order for Trump to act, he must violate the Constitutional separation of powers. I want to expose the practice of EO's as unConstitutional - because I believe they are. I want to expose the majority of the bureaucracies as unConstitutional, because they are.

                        The Constitution was set up with a clear delineation in which branch of government had the responsibility to act in certain areas, and we've become desensitized to recognizing these lines and being open and vocal when they are crossed. We've had 100 years or more of Presidents legislating in seemingly small and simple things which overstepped their bounds. And so now that there are major policy decisions coming from the President's desk, no one bats an eye. DACA was clearly unConstitutional and President Obama admitted as much when he drafted it. I want President Trump to reverse DACA and then challenge the Legislature and Courts to defy him, because the only way to return to a Constitutional government is for the Judicial Branch to admit that it overstepped its bounds 30 years earlier in its rulings and demand that the Legislature properly do its job.

                        This is a case where the only way to get back to the rule of law is to break the law and expose the contradictions which have become part of the system. It is not that those actions wouldn't be well-intentioned, but intention is not what defines legality.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month ago
                          Rough translation: You want Trump to act in an unconstitutional manner to expose the fact that Congress is shirking its Constitutional duty. This makes no sense. If you favor restricting each branch to its Constitutional role, then Trump should not attempt to make any policy on this issue regardless of what Congress does or doesn’t do. If in this instance you want Trump to do something that you consider unconstitutional (for whatever reason), that considerably weakens your argument that each branch of government should behave in accordance with its Constitutional limits.

                          Furthermore, this controversy will do nothing to “expose the practice of EO's as unconstitutional.” Even if the Supreme Court takes up this case, it will decide only narrowly whether this particular executive order is constitutional or not. The constitutional status of bureaucracies, and of executive orders in general, will not even rise to the level of a blip on the general public’s radar.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
                            "Rough translation: You want Trump to act in an unconstitutional manner to expose the fact that Congress is shirking its Constitutional duty."

                            In my opinion, it is the only recourse available. I didn't say I liked it, but I don't see any way to confront a broken system except by forcing the problem out into the open. I do favor restricting each branch of government to its specific role, but there are so many things broken with our current implementation that I could go on with an extensive list. Nothing is going to get fixed unless we're willing to confront and admit there is a problem in the first place, however.

                            "Even if the Supreme Court takes up this case, it will decide only narrowly whether this particular executive order is constitutional or not."

                            That all depends on the Court (and the original lawsuit). With a majority of Constitutional jurists now, they may address the larger point about the Constitutionality of such EO's in the first place. That would be my hope.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
              Nevertheless: he should consider himself free to act until a court tells him he may not act. If you think he is not free to act as he proposes, cite the case!

              I dislike sounding like a broken record (one of the strategies of assertive interaction). But I still say:

              Cite the case.

              Cite the case.

              Cite the case.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. I can read, however, and Article I of the Constitution of the United States states very clearly in its opening paragraph:

                "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

                Legislative power is the power to make law. According to the Constitution, it very clearly reserves lawmaking power to the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. If the President is making law, he is abrogating his duties and infringing on the prerogative of the Legislature. This is made even more egregious when talking about immigration/naturalization laws, which are specifically delegated as per Section 8 of Article I to the Legislature thus:

                "The Congress shall have Power...
                "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

                You keep asking for a court case, but the proper mechanism for adjudication is already in place: Impeachment. It should have happened to Barack Obama, but the Republicans were too spineless to do it. The other difficulty is that the Supreme Court has typically dodged these kinds of cases for exactly that reason, saying that if the Legislature wants to do something, it should - not merely gripe.

                Of course, this is the first time in nearly 80 years when we have a majority of actual Constitutionalists on the Bench. The Supreme Court has been distinctly leftist for much of that time. That's one of the reasons I WANT this to go to the Supreme Court at this time: so that such actions can be Constitutionally argued and decided.

                The other major problem I have is the approach - that somehow we must be forced to bow before the Judicial Branch in order to limit the Executive. This is also a false ideal. The Framers intentionally created the Legislative Branch to be by far the most powerful, and the Judicial the least. A reliance on Supreme Court precedent instead of an actual reading of the Constitution is incredibly dangerous.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
                  There are actually four sources of law, and you're looking at one only: statutory. As regards statutory law, you are correct: that comes from Congress and only the Congress.

                  Constitutional law is what follows from the plain text of the Constitution, by any reasonable interpretation.

                  Case law is what judges have decided in controversies that came before them.

                  Natural law is that law which proceeds from the very nature of nation-states and their citizens and subjects.

                  Now: you maintain that under the current state of the law, where the stork drops you, you are a citizen by birth.

                  And I am asking you to cite the statute, the case, or the Article (or Amendment), Section, and Clause of the Constitution that so says.

                  And I rely on Emmerich de Vattel, who treated natural law in The Law of Nations, to say that citizenship depends on lawful residency of the parents.

                  If no one professes to know how a President may act, then he is well advised to act, and say to his opponents, "So sue me." That's the only way to get a court to decide.

                  If you think you can cut that short, then cite statute, case, or Constitutional provision.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                    "Now: you maintain that under the current state of the law, where the stork drops you, you are a citizen by birth."

                    If you read my previous comments, I agreed with you that citizenship depends on the lawful residency of the parents. You held that both parents were necessary while I stated that I had read legal opinions stating that only one parent was necessary. But I think you are gravely misinterpreting my comments to mean something other than that. I have never held that so-called "birthright" citizenship is a proper interpretation of any citizenship clause - let alone the Fourteenth Amendment.

                    I adhere to the British common law notion - the same which the author of the 14th Amendment used - in that the 14th Amendment only holds jurisdiction over those who are in the United States but over whom there are no other jurisdictional claims. That was only the case for the freed slaves in the 1860's. No people since can claim that necessary zero jurisdiction - not even the Native American Indians, because they were treated as their own sovereign nations - and still are in many cases. Foreigners have zero claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for protection not only according to my opinion, but according to the explicit words of the author of the 14th Amendment: Jacob M. Howard of Michigan. He explicitly explained that in a speech on the Senate Floor. (This article was the best I could find on short notice https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-ba...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
                      Ah, now I see the confusion.

                      I was talking about how to define natural-born citizens, of the type John Jay should have the exclusive privilege of eligibility to the office of President.

                      A person can be a citizen-at-birth without being a natural-born citizen. The distinction of this: a natural-born citizen is a citizen-at-birth of one place only. A person can be a citizen-at-birth of two different countries, and free to choose. The Law of the Soil might say one thing (if the parents were domiciled on that soil), while the Law of the Blood says another.

                      I was talking strictly about the illegal-immigration case. Too many Presidents have in the past acquiesced in granting citizenship-at-birth to all children born in this country, regardless of circumstances. Donald Trump now refuses. Time, he believes, does not sanction all or even any presumptions upon the Constitution or on statutory or case law.

                      Now you know what I mean by "cite the case."
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                        Glad we got that cleared up, but I'm not sure why this distinction is one that matters in any case other than a Presidential election. It certainly doesn't matter to the illegal caravan.

                        BTW - if you are looking for Supreme Court precedent on giving illegals rights, you should check out Justice Brennan's decision in Plyler v. Doe. I don't doubt that this case is one of the reasons some of our Presidents have punted. This decision is one more example of how disastrous it is to rely on Supreme Court precedent for such things when Congress has the Constitutional jurisdiction and responsibility to act.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
                          If you want a model for President Trump from Presidents past, I suggest Andrew Jackson.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
                            For some things, maybe, but his treatment of Blacks and Indians was a debacle. See Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America".

                            I'd be hesitant to suggest any past President, because nearly all of them had problems. If you want to consider solely Andrew Jackson's military leadership and his willingness to stand up for his values and defy Congress (irrespective of what those values were), I can understand the appeal.

                            One note, however: Andrew Jackson got very close to being Impeached. We already have a current Democratic Congress which is willing to Impeach Trump just for being of the opposite party. I'd be careful about what you wish for.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
            Disagree, he can make a move (as he has) that will provoke Congress to discuss and hopefully act. Yes, EOs can be used to make and shape policy, but EOs, nor is the Executive, permitted to make or adjust law as set forth by the Constitution.

            Like it or not the 14th Amendment is law and does have rulings for and against the current fallacious interpretation.

            I'm thinking DT kicked this ball into motion and, as long as he doesn't believe its a power he possesses, its a good thing.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
              Re: "nor is the Executive, permitted to make or adjust law as set forth by the Constitution." Trump is neither making law nor adjusting law. He is setting policy in the absence of any law regarding the topic in question. He would have been setting policy even if he had chosen to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors on this issue. Trump did not trespass on Congress' powers, he acted in the context of a legislative void that Congress chose not to fill. Congress is free to remedy this situation at any time.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
              What you keep missing, is that nothing in either statutory, case, or natural law grants birthright citizenship to every baby whom the stork drops on any given soil, merely by virtue of said stork leaving his load on said soil. Everybody keeps saying it. And I say: cite the case! And that's what Trump is now doing: challenging his gibing detractors to cite the case.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
                I came across this timely article. It explains context and the why.

                https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

                There is separation of powers for a reason. As for "setting policy in absence..." The Amendment, as the article would show, was reactionary for specific reasons. Policy since 1890 was anyone born in the US was citizen, but as we all can plainly see that is not what the intention was when the reconstruction Amendments were created. Even so, changing the law is outside the scope of even the highly exaggerated authority of the POTUS today.

                Citing a case is moot as since 1890 the policy has been the problem we see today. I'm no lawyer to search case law (any more than a google search). In the article it does clearly show that the intent was ignored but that doesn't change the process to correct it.

                People were furious when O use EOs beyond the authority given to the Executive but now its okay?

                https://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
                  I would ask you to distinguish Obama from Trump. Obama sought to add to, or take away from, or redirect the Constitution. Trump seeks to correct the _mis_direction of which past Presidents have been, frankly, guilty in this context.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 1 month, 1 week ago
                    This isn't difficult.

                    The POTUS has no authority to issue EO which alters Law. By misusing EO's Trump is no different than O except by degrees of severity. Whether he did so to help the nation or harm the nation the end result is the same, the degradation of the structure of the Constitution and the lessening of one branches power by the seize of that power by the other (executive).

                    I left the Tea party for their inability to see this rationale. You don't break the law to make the law, it can only be corrosive.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 1 week ago
      As much as I would hate to side with Democrats, I think that might be good.
      --But one way to prevent "anchor babies" might be to simply prohibit the entry into this country of a pregnant woman (unless she is already a citizen). Of if a legal resident alien becomes pregnant, require her to leave the country temporarily, until after she gives birth or has a miscarriage.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 1 week ago
    Excuse me, I think that is dead wrong. The Amendment says "All persons born within the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." We are not supposed to go by the inner, subjective intentions of the people who draft and Amendment. The words mean what they mean. Perhaps they should have thought enough about the possibilities of "anchor babies" but the fact is, they didn't; and if you disagree with the Amendment, you are free to campaign for a new Amendment to overturn it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month, 1 week ago
      Excuse me, but I dispute you. "Subject to the jurisdiction" means "lawfully resident."

      Demonstrably it does not refer to the child of an invading or occupying soldier. (If the child is a product of a relationship between said soldier and a local citizen, that's a different thing, and would be NSFW to discuss.)

      If an invading or occupying soldier is a robber, then an illegal immigrant is a burglar. The distinction between the two makes no difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month, 1 week ago
        "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "obligated to obey the laws thereof", which sometimes does not apply to diplomats and their progeny. But having a child born here would not confer citizenship on the parent in any case.--In fact, one way to handle the problem of "anchor babies would be to bar pregnant women from entering the country; of, if a resident alien got pregnant after entry, expelling her temporarily from the country until after she either gave birth or had a miscarriage.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo