Law Trump may sign E.O. ending birthright citizenship

[MicroBrew]

point of order: birth is not a right but a privilege

Not sure what you mean, because a baby has the right to exit the mother.

 

[MicroBrew]

As Republicans we have to stop wasting time on these narrow issues. Look at where we are strong and where we lost in the last election. This issue would not have brought in more votes in the battlegrounds in the demographics we need while it is already supported by the base.

We have to govern responsibly, make a persuasive case for urban and working class voters, and stop shooting ourselves in the foot with a disjointed political agenda. It would have been easy to win the local state and national election by a landslide if we had just backed the science and have the clinician community support the Republicans for our measured and effective leadership in the pandemic.

But instead we waste time on improbable legal maneuvers as well as do the exact thing we as a party should stand against --- stop the decades long expansion of executive branch power and ruling by presidential fiat. Thats why we lost the election. Not because of the OP's topic or suggestions.

The american people deserve better and that's where we need to start today.

If the GOP was genuine about attracting the masses, all they need to do is push for bringing manufacturing back home, try to limit outsourcing , try to decouple from China. in 2016 Trump attracted a lot of people who were not die-hard Republicans with talk of America First, bringing jobs back, trying to discourage outsoucing and getting tough with China.

The GOP can hurt the Democrats big time if they followed the economic nationalism Trump preached. But the GOP will NOT do that because like the Democrat party elites, they supported unfettered globalism and the interests of Corporate America and Wall Street. The GOP will co-opt Trump's economic America first nationalism when campaigning but will never follow through.

 

[heloder]

As Republicans we have to stop wasting time on these narrow issues. Look at where we are strong and where we lost in the last election. This issue would not have brought in more votes in the battlegrounds in the demographics we need while it is already supported by the base.

We have to govern responsibly, make a persuasive case for urban and working class voters, and stop shooting ourselves in the foot with a disjointed political agenda. It would have been easy to win the local state and national election by a landslide if we had just backed the science and have the clinician community support the Republicans for our measured and effective leadership in the pandemic.

But instead we waste time on improbable legal maneuvers as well as do the exact thing we as a party should stand against --- stop the decades long expansion of executive branch power and ruling by presidential fiat. Thats why we lost the election. Not because of the OP's topic or suggestions.

The american people deserve better and that's where we need to start today.

You don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it.

 

[funcrusher2007]

You're right, you do sound like a 2 year old. By all means, give an example of the "compromise" that you could see realistically happening. The compromise is what we already have, and the 2 sides want to go in opposite directions.

1) better oversight on work visa violations .Guest worker status should not be a path to citizenship and should not include rights to U.S. social benefits.guest worker violators are the number one factor in illegal immigration.

Compromise:better paths to citizenship for people Who with employer sponsorship, meet immigration requirements. removing financial and exasperated time frame burdens on those tying to do it the right way.

2) aggressive prosecution for facilitating anchor baby farms

Compromise:daca being accepted as law of the land and not fought over every other presidency. A person who has lived in America since infant/child age, who is a productive member of society and has played by the rules should not have less citizenship standing as a rich Chinese mother who can pay for her kid to be born here in an Orange County baby mill.

3) employers who knowingly hire illegals will be put on probation..if caught multiple times they will lose Business license and will have fines as well as potential imprisonment if repeat offenders. This will be aggressively prosecuted. They will be responsible for reimbursement of all fees accumulated by ice raids,immigration administration costs due to there blatant violation of immigration law.

compromise: employers that follow rules and show that they utilize systems like everify would be entitled to tax right offs for administration fees and costs associated with running a clean worker immigration program.

4) Deportation and removal. There is no good argument for not deporting aliens who have criminal records, whether they are violent crimes or identity theft, drug possession or trafficking or other so-called “victimless crimes.”

Compromise:focus on these fucks and stop wasting resources on the guy who’s working 80 a week for having a stoplight violation. This would open up seriously needed resources for agencies to utilize, helping them go after those that matter.

This shit is off the top of my head..immigration is complex and involves so many social and economical facets. But this one side takes all approach is a waste of time and money.
It has not worked and something different needs to happen.
These are things I could see being realistic points of compromise.
amnesty is just as hurr durr as build the wall.. both are examples of losing endeavors and is why legislation always stalls. Both parties need to meet a common ground somewhere..we as a nation are just kicking the can down the road over and over again.

 

[bobgeese]

I don't approve of it done via executive order.

 

[funcrusher2007]

We did compromise.. in the 80s.
How did that work out.

Fool me once shame on you.. fool me twice shame on me

I agree, the compromise from 80’s didn’t work out. Problem is nothing truly is compromised when the position from the get go is unattainable for either side..amnesty will never fly for republicans and all out war on immigrants isn’t going to fly for Democrats..it’s obviously not working the way it’s going, we really need to find common ground at this point. But sadly right now it’s like two kids un willing to give up a toy. There needs to be civility and maturity reinterjected into our political sphere.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Pointing this out and asking for an amendment to the constitution means you’re a hypocrite and an idiot, because apparently if you believe in and support the Bill of Rights, that means you can’t possibly ever ask for an amendment to much later provisions to the constitution.

Pretty sure that no one has ever said this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If the GOP was genuine about attracting the masses, all they need to do is push for bringing manufacturing back home, try to limit outsourcing , try to decouple from China. in 2016 Trump attracted a lot of people who were not die-hard Republicans with talk of America First, bringing jobs back, trying to discourage outsoucing and getting tough with China.

The GOP can hurt the Democrats big time if they followed the economic nationalism Trump preached. But the GOP will NOT do that because like the Democrat party elites, they supported unfettered globalism and the interests of Corporate America and Wall Street. The GOP will co-opt Trump's economic America first nationalism when campaigning but will never follow through.

I doubt that what you're saying would be a political big winner, and I think the reason that people don't do it is that they know the consequences for American workers and consumers would be really bad.

 

[blaseblah]

If the GOP was genuine about attracting the masses, all they need to do is push for bringing manufacturing back home, try to limit outsourcing , try to decouple from China. in 2016 Trump attracted a lot of people who were not die-hard Republicans with talk of America First, bringing jobs back, trying to discourage outsoucing and getting tough with China.

The GOP can hurt the Democrats big time if they followed the economic nationalism Trump preached. But the GOP will NOT do that because like the Democrat party elites, they supported unfettered globalism and the interests of Corporate America and Wall Street. The GOP will co-opt Trump's economic America first nationalism when campaigning but will never follow through.

Trump himself didn't follow through either. You need a real populist, and I'm not sure such a politician exists in the current iteration of the GOP.

 

[BForrester]

The left thinks they can undo the 1st Amendment with an executive order, what's the difference?

No they don't.

 

[mrsenor]

Lolol, another un winnable endeavor, it’s like him and is team sit down and go..”hmmm,let’s see what else we can lose today”.

just like anything, I do agree there needs to be checks and balances to it..they do need to reign in the abuse. That would involve....

comprehensive immigration reform, gasp!

you mean an amnesty

 

[blaseblah]

I doubt that what you're saying would be a political big winner, and I think the reason that people don't do it is that they know the consequences for American workers and consumers would be really bad.

What on Earth are you talking about? Biden is currently proposing much of what he is talking about.

 

[Limbo Pete]

No they don't.

"The left tried to undo the 1st Amendment with an executive order!"
"No they didn't."
"Well, but they want to undo the 1st Amendment with an executive order."
"No they don't."
"...but you can imagine if they did, right? Right?"
*slap on the back*









"No yelling on the bus!!!"

 

[Jack V Savage]

What on Earth are you talking about? Biden is currently proposing much of what he is talking about.

Haha, no. Maybe you didn't read his post? Biden will likely be less supportive of free trade than is ideal, but that guy is an idiot.

 

[Cooz]

According to The Hill, he may sign an E.O. ending birthright citizenship. So undoing the 14th amendment on the matter.

Got no problem with this, the 14th amendment is being abused; there is no way the folks who signed it into law envisioned countless people flying into the US just to give birth and claim all the benefits of being an American citizen for their offspring despite not paying any taxes or otherwise contributing to the country .

Wonder why he never did it ? He may actually have won the election if he had signed the E.O. prior to the elections. Seems like that would have won him a lot of votes. So to the Trump supporters here, my question is : why didn't he ?

--

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ives-talk-of-action-on-birthright-citizenship

The Trump administration has revived discussions around taking executive action targeting birthright citizenship in its final weeks before leaving office, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

President Trump has spoken throughout his first term about ending birthright citizenship. Drafts of a possible order have been circulating for some time, and there is now internal discussion about finalizing it before the Biden administration takes over in January, sources said.

It's not meant to actually overturn the law. It's just PR.

What, you think he came up with a prevailing policy while golfing? It's more like "How can I get some free advertisement and get broadcast on to most channels?".

Unfortunately the clown show will continue until inauguration.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

If you take a moment to think about it, you'll see that it most certainly was. There wasn't the same anxiety about overcrowding or social programs or a drug trade. Border towns weren't much a thing either. There were no vehicles, etc. If you came here, and weren't some kind of funded diplomat or explorer, you were staying.

If border towns weren't a thing and there were no automobiles or airplanes, they probably didn't think of the possibility that Chinese people would move in, give birth and move out. And they probably didn't want it as they were big on European only migration until 1964.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has to be intentionally and wildly misconstrued to somehow not mean what it clearly means
Gonna change what "person" means? Jesus Christ, Alan.

He means changing what jurisdiction means, of course.
The classical interpretation is that only diplomats or a foreign invading force are not subject to the jurisdiction since tourists or temporary workers can get arrested, tried etc. Illegals are on the same boat, and I agree with it, but it's not as ridiculous to claim they're outside the jurisdiction than its to change the definition of people.

Pointing this out and asking for an amendment to the constitution means you’re a hypocrite and an idiot, because apparently if you believe in and support the Bill of Rights, that means you can’t possibly ever ask for an amendment to much later provisions to the constitution.

I believe it's likely that an amendment that excluded illegals and birth tourists would have passed if proposed in 1865, maybe even in 1920, but nowadays it's impossible.
Hence, you're, in a sense, a fool if you propose it.

 

[Limbo Pete]

If border towns weren't a thing and there were no automobiles or airplanes, they probably didn't think of the possibility that Chinese people would move in, give birth and move out. And they probably didn't want it as they were big on European only migration until 1964.


He means changing what jurisdiction means, of course.
The classical interpretation is that only diplomats or a foreign invading force are not subject to the jurisdiction since tourists or temporary workers can get arrested, tried etc. Illegals are on the same boat, and I agree with it, but it's not as ridiculous to claim they're outside the jurisdiction than its to change the definition of people.


I believe it's likely that an amendment that excluded illegals and birth tourists would have passed if proposed in 1865, maybe even in 1920, but nowadays it's impossible.
Hence, you're, in a sense, a fool if you propose it.

How someone illegal gonna be illegal if they aren't under legal jurisdiction lol
It makes no sense
The kind of change you would need to accomplish this would be, you guessed it

Spoiler

A Constitutional Amendment

It couldn't even be changed by an Act, because it would be a change to the 14th (which is what was attempted back in the 1800s with the Chinese Exclusion Act)

 

[Nomad-Echo-X]

good, they aren't citizens.

 

[Sisyphos]

The US needs to fix it's illegal immigration issue, period.
The US is literally the only Western first world country dealing with massive amounts of illegal immigrants, it's almost become a joke at this point. There are many million illegal immigrants in the USA AFAIK.

The biggest measure I see is actually penalising companies which hire illegals. You have to make it difficult for the illegals to want to stay in the country to begin with.

Stopping them at the border would be ideal, but the US political system at a deadlock in terms of creating a solid southern border.