Law Trump Issues Executive Order ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP for Illegal Aliens and Those In The US Lawful but Temporary

[DoctorTaco]

Then I was incorrect in my statement. I know i read it and heard it but it apparently is not correct . My apologies there. Still doesn't make any sense but my statement was incorrect.

Fair play

 

[James Bomb]

Arguments began today in front of SCOTUS regarding Trump’s EO to ban birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.
To be clear this case is not judging the merits of the order, it rather whether the lower court had the Riht to issue a nationwide injunction as it did.

SCOTUS seemed very skeptical of the Trump Admin’s arguments on both fronts, including several conservative justices. Some highlights:



“In court Thursday, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum told the justices that the states need a nationwide injunction because the imposition on each state caused by the plan could not be remedied by a state-specific injunction. He pointed out, for example, that people constantly move between states and there would be “chaos on the ground where people’s citizenship turns on and off when you cross state lines,” depending on how states deal with the issue.
Two justices in the court’s conservative majority, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both seemed sympathetic to those arguments.

"Why wouldn't they be entitled to an injunction of the scope of the one that has currently been entered?" Barrett said to Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who was arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration.

Gorsuch pushed back when Sauer dismissed that argument on the grounds that it would justify nationwide injunctions in almost any case.
Fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh also asked Sauer skeptical questions about the practical problems with blocking Trump's executive order in some parts of the country but not others.

"What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?" he asked.


It doesn’t appear that Trump is likely to succeed in this case, and doesn’t seem likely he’d succeed in a case on the merits of the EO either.

Loading…

www.yahoo.com

I read the transcript. Total disaster for the Trump administration, as it should be.

This EO should lose 9-0 on a competent Supreme Court. But we’ll see.

 

[BFoe]

I read the transcript. Total disaster for the Trump administration, as it should be.

This EO should lose 9-0 on a competent Supreme Court. But we’ll see.

I’m expecting 7-2, because Alito and Thomas are insane. But maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[jrams]

I thought you guys were crying that SCOTUS was bought and paid for though?

 

[IDGETKTFO]

I thought you guys were crying that SCOTUS was bought and paid for though?

When it suits them, any other time, Orange man bad! We are only 100 days in. Its only going to get worse for Lefties, as more EO's get to the SCOTUS in Trumps favor. I am so bored and petty i have been writing down the usual suspects usernames to keep track of their dub/ban status in the coming 265 days.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I thought you guys were crying that SCOTUS was bought and paid for though?

They handed Trump total criminal immunity (outside their own whim of course) and complete personal control over the DOJ lmao

 

[DoctorTaco]

That pesky Constitution

Trumps legal team has decided he doesn’t have to follow it (seriously.)

 

[Andy Capp]

Do we have any idea how long it should take SCOTUS to rule on this?

 

[BForrester]

So many people comment from areas not affected. Come to NYC, Chicago, Boston, then comment. Astoria Queens now has 24-7 prostitution with migrant gangs running it. Broad daylight. Boston was so overrun they housed children migrants with known philes. The subways have become crime hubs. Something had to happen.

Legalize prostitution and regulate it. Problem solved.

 

[BForrester]

Of course they're NOT subject to US jurisdiction if the federal government doesn't know they're here. That's why the executive order applies to illegal aliens or people who are here temporarily.

If they're suspected of a crime and can be tried in our justice system, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[BFoe]

Do we have any idea how long it should take SCOTUS to rule on this?

Hard to say. Often times their decisions are released in June, but it’s possible they rule sooner on this due to its importance. This case isn’t actually about the merits of Trump’s EO though, just whether or not a lower court can order an injunction that’s nationwide.

 

[BForrester]

The 14th Amendment Protected the Civil Rights of Freed Slaves, Not Illegal Aliens​

There's no such thing as birthright citizenship.​

The 14th Amendment Protected the Civil Rights of Freed Slaves, Not Illegal Aliens | Frontpage Mag

There's no such thing as birthright citizenship.

www.frontpagemag.com

I have said it before and I will say it again, the 14th Amendment is by far the worst amendment to the Constitution. It broke every possible rule of constitutional government beginning with simplicity and timelessness. The 14th is a sprawling mess meant to deal with immediate problems that used sloppy broad language and quickly became a magnet for every leftist effort to conduct backdoor rewrites of the law.

Consider that in just the last few years, Democrats used 4 of the 5 sections of the 14th to argue that…

1. That Trump was ineligible to hold office

2. That Congress was obligated to raise the debt limit

3. That men who pretend they’re women are entitled to do so

and now

4. That illegal aliens born in this country are automatically citizens

We know exactly what Section 1 of the 14th was aimed at. “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” was meant to protect the civil rights of freed slaves. It did not mean that anyone who happened to give birth in this country automatically made their kid a citizen, but that’s the absurd premise of birthright citizenship.

And the current Trump executive order meant to apply to future children of illegal aliens is being challenged on the basis of the Fourteenth. This battle is almost certainly going to end up in the Supreme Court which should be interesting, though far from an inevitable happy outcome. If you think Neil or Amy are going to vote to eliminate birthright citizenship, well good luck with that. Ideally we should repeal old number fourteen which is probably the sloppiest and messiest of the amendments. If you doubt that, go look up at that list above.

Not likely to happen, but a man can dream.

There’s no such thing as birthright citizenship. Or any of the other things that Dems keep finding in the 14th Amendment which was not written to do any of these things.

"FrontPage Magazine, also known as FrontPageMag.com, is an American right-wing, anti-Islam political website edited by David Horowitz and published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The site has also been described by scholars and writers as far-right and Islamophobic."

Yeah, seems like a legit source.

 

[I Am Legion]

Legalize prostitution and regulate it. Problem solved.

I have always said that. The biggest issue now is trafficking. These women in Queens, many are forced into this. Brought from their countries by Gangs and pimped out.

 

[BFoe]

"FrontPage Magazine, also known as FrontPageMag.com, is an American right-wing, anti-Islam political website edited by David Horowitz and published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The site has also been described by scholars and writers as far-right and Islamophobic."

Yeah, seems like a legit source.

Yup, super legit…

Frontpage Magazine - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Fergelmince]

If they're suspected of a crime and can be tried in our justice system, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Poor, naive communists, including your tag-along @BFoe .


As if the illegals who committed many of these crimes below can be "suspected" when law enforcement doesn't even know they're here, or who or where they are.

 

[BFoe]

Poor, naive communists, including your tag-along @BFoe .


As if the illegals who committed many of these crimes below can be "suspected" when law enforcement doesn't even know they're here, or who or where they are.

This is a ridiculous argument and makes no sense.

Jose Antonio Ibarra was undocumented, suspected of Laken Riley’s murder, caught, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced to life without parole.
—Your position is that all of that is unconstitutional? That’s a hot take, bud.
If undocumented immigrants aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, all we could do is deport him. But that’s obviously not the case.

SCOTUS has addressed the arguments being raised by the Right before, in both United States v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, and more recently in Plyler v Doe in 1982.

A history of birthright citizenship at the Supreme Court

This article was updated on Feb. 6 at 2:04 p.m. Shortly after being sworn into office on Jan. 20 for a second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order […]

www.scotusblog.com

 

[oldshadow]

If they are born in the US then they are US citizens I think that has been established.

This is not the way to stop the anchor baby problem.

The way is the way they are doing it now. The parents are illegal then they get kicked out. It's their choice and right to take their child or children with them or find them a legal family to adopt or foster them.

 

[BFoe]

If they are born in the US then they are US citizens I think that has been established.

This is not the way to stop the anchor baby problem.

The way is the way they are doing it now. The parents are illegal then they get kicked out. It's their choice and right to take their child or children with them or find them a legal family to adopt or foster them.

But you can’t deport a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents’ status. Simply deporting the parents and forcing the child (who is a citizen) to become an orphan or be raised by some adopted family seems like a violation of their rights.

 

[HereticBD]

But you can’t deport a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents’ status.

Well, good news, they're not being "deported" if they leave with their illegal relatives.

 

[oldshadow]

But you can’t deport a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents’ status. Simply deporting the parents and forcing the child (who is a citizen) to become an orphan or be raised by some adopted family seems like a violation of their rights.

You are not deporting a US citizen. They are a minor and their parent's are being deported.

They have the right to make the decisions for their child. If they want them to stay with them then they can. The child has the right at 18 to make the decision to return to the US as a citizen.