Exactly. His first two years are mostly a disappointment, even to his base, for the most part. Rare, unpopular, legislative victories, hugely unpopular Supreme Court pick, etc. This stuff is red...
Exactly. His first two years are mostly a disappointment, even to his base, for the most part. Rare, unpopular, legislative victories, hugely unpopular Supreme Court pick, etc. This stuff is red meat for his base to get them fired up as recent polls have shown his approval rating tanking.
Someone needs to tell the President that "executive orders" aren't magic. I feel like he's been throwing the term around with wild abandon because he doesn't know any other way to get things done.
Someone needs to tell the President that "executive orders" aren't magic. I feel like he's been throwing the term around with wild abandon because he doesn't know any other way to get things done.
One one hand there is the 14th amendment, on the other anchor babies are a problem and need to be dealt with. If he intends to only target children where both parents are illegal immigrants, I see...
One one hand there is the 14th amendment, on the other anchor babies are a problem and need to be dealt with. If he intends to only target children where both parents are illegal immigrants, I see no issue. If the parents are legal residents, or at least one parent is a legal resident, the kid should be a citizen. No further comment is required.
We also need to look at the context of the 14th amendment if we want to see if what he proposes is unconstitutional. We also need to take a look at is this a thing that the President can do with an executive order, or is it something Congress should be doing.
My personal answer is it's unconstitutional due to fact that the President is doing it with an executive order, not the idea itself is unconstitutional.
hat's a bold statement to make. Immigration in and of itself a good thing. I have no problem with immigration, I have a problem with ILLEGAL immigration. The US government has the right to say who...
I don't think immigration is a problem.
Not to mention the hypocrisy of the President when Melania Trump's own parents used chain-migration to get citizenship to the US.
hat's a bold statement to make. Immigration in and of itself a good thing. I have no problem with immigration, I have a problem with ILLEGAL immigration. The US government has the right to say who enters it's country. Hence it not being hypocritical abusit the laws about immigration that are already on the books.
Again, you clearly have no idea how the Constitution works if you think an executive order can just get rid of an amendment of the Constitution.
It's not getting rid of an amendment of the Constitution, it's challenging it. If someone has a problem with it it goes to court and they decide if it constitutional. This has been done many times in the past, it's part of how the government operates. It's designed to be this way. A good example of this is FDR's new deal.
claim that is at all ambiguous show you have literally no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not making a claim one way or the other I'm setting up a question for debate. It's obviously in the gray area of is this what the 14th ammendmet said. A good example of this is the 2nd ammendmet, we have been arguing about what it means for the past 50 years? Hell, we have been arguing about what the 1st ammendmet is for the past 200 years. What makes the 14th ammendmet different?
What are the reason and arguments for each side? That's what I want to know.
They decide if the Constitution is Constitutional? "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the...
It's not getting rid of an amendment of the Constitution, it's challenging it. If someone has a problem with it it goes to court and they decide if it constitutional.
They decide if the Constitution is Constitutional?
"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."
They can only interpret the Constitution, not overrule it. It would be a pretty wild interpretation to decide in favor of Trump.
The key part is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What that part of the statement means is up for debate. Native Americans born on US soil aren't eligible for US citizenship. The reasoning...
The key part is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What that part of the statement means is up for debate.
Native Americans born on US soil aren't eligible for US citizenship. The reasoning behind it is that they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the US government.
Similarly children of diplomats to the US don't get citizenship. It's not a clear cut case and an argument can be made both ways.
They can only interpret the Constitution, not overrule it.
Agreed. But the Supreme Court has made rulings that are clearly unconstitutional and then went back and revised those rulings after the fact. Again I bring up what occurred with FDR and the new deal. Those rulings were overuled later on. So this kind of political partisanship is nothing new.
There is precedent regarding the meaning of that phrase. A re-interpretation would be thrusting unsupported de novo meaning upon it and would only be a transparent fig leaf attempting to cover an...
There is precedent regarding the meaning of that phrase. A re-interpretation would be thrusting unsupported de novo meaning upon it and would only be a transparent fig leaf attempting to cover an interpretation that is clearly not in good faith.
Here's a constitutional law professor's take on the matter:
I mean if he makes an executive order and it's illegal/unconstitutional the courts will decide that the same way they did with the "Muslim ban". The system is working as intended. I don't see the...
I mean if he makes an executive order and it's illegal/unconstitutional the courts will decide that the same way they did with the "Muslim ban". The system is working as intended. I don't see the big deal.
I personally think that his point is in the spirit of the law. As stated by the examples given above. The Congressional transcript of the discussions of the 14th ammendmet support his point of view. Even though I agree with his position, the way you accomplish something like this is you go to the legislative branch and they pass a law.
The problem with that system is that the legislative branch has stopped writing laws. Because of that there is now a power vacuum that the judicial branch and the executive branch are fighting over. A good example of this is the legalization of gay marriage through the Supreme Court. This also occurrs in the executive branch with the EPA using the clean ait act to try to impose a carbon tax.
All of the ideas stated above are something I agree with and support, but the ends don't justify the means. If you want legalization of gay marriage go vote and elect Congressmen and women who will pass a bill to legalize it. If you want a carbon tax go pass a bill in Congress that states that. Don't kick it over to the judicial branch/executive branch respectfully.
That is downright false, Native Americans are citizens. I can't link to the specific question but it's here: https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
Native Americans born on US soil aren't eligible for US citizenship.
That is downright false, Native Americans are citizens.
That doesn't apply to children of immigrants. They are born on US (non-Tribal) land and subject to US jurisdiction just by being there.
the amendment has been interpreted that the Tribes are separate Nations to which an Indian owes allegiance and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the United States
That doesn't apply to children of immigrants. They are born on US (non-Tribal) land and subject to US jurisdiction just by being there.
Immigrants aren't real "persons". Only white people are. BOOM! Problem solved. [/s]
"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."
Immigrants aren't real "persons". Only white people are. BOOM! Problem solved. [/s]
This was done by many countries. In France for example, children born of 2 non-French parents are not given French citizenship, since the mid-1980s or so.
This was done by many countries. In France for example, children born of 2 non-French parents are not given French citizenship, since the mid-1980s or so.
There are side effects to getting rid of birthright citizenship. You're potentially creating this underclass of stateless people, descended from undocumented immigrants but having lived their...
There are side effects to getting rid of birthright citizenship. You're potentially creating this underclass of stateless people, descended from undocumented immigrants but having lived their entire lives in the united states, who exist in a permanent state of legal limbo.
This is actually a big problem in Thailand. A large part of why there are so many child prostitutes in Thailand is because the hill-tribe communities tend to be populated by stateless residents,...
You're potentially creating this underclass of stateless people, descended from undocumented immigrants but having lived their entire lives in the united states, who exist in a permanent state of legal limbo.
This is actually a big problem in Thailand. A large part of why there are so many child prostitutes in Thailand is because the hill-tribe communities tend to be populated by stateless residents, the children of Myanmar immigrants and refugees who were refused citizenship due to discrimination, and because their parents are not citizens, the children are not, either. As a result, they cannot go to public schools, and their career options are very limited. Prostitution is one of the only ways to make enough money to support your family with no knowledge of the Thai or English languages and no education.
Revoking birthright citizenship will have consequences down the road. We might not end up in the same sad state as Thailand, but there will be a large underclass of people working in horrifying conditions who will never have rights in any country. They cannot legally be deported since nobody will take them, so they'll end up working for pennies on the dollar doing difficult jobs whilst politicians who rail against illegal immigrants undercutting American workers and committing crimes literally cannot stop this.
Considering the 14th Amendment is pretty explicit regarding citizenship ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United...
Considering the 14th Amendment is pretty explicit regarding citizenship ("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."), a Supreme Court that rules in favor of an executive order rescinding such citizenship risks delegitimazing itself in perpetuity.
I mean, I don't think it would happen but I wouldn't be that surprised if it did, you know? A substantial number of people already view the senate and possibly the executive itself as...
I mean, I don't think it would happen but I wouldn't be that surprised if it did, you know? A substantial number of people already view the senate and possibly the executive itself as illegitimate, and the judiciary is already teetering on the edge.
Delegitimizing itself in whose eyes? The 40+% of the country that wants it to happen? The Republican Secretaries of State making sure enough of the other 60% isn't allowed to vote? The Democrats...
Delegitimizing itself in whose eyes? The 40+% of the country that wants it to happen? The Republican Secretaries of State making sure enough of the other 60% isn't allowed to vote? The Democrats who are too chickenshit to do anything about it (the SC's ruling, sure they'd repeal the EO) even if they had power?
Republicans don't care about legitimacy except when it helps them. They'll happily tear apart the Constitution and that's what they are going to do.
At this point Democrats taking back the House is iffy, let alone taking back the Senate or Presidency. Republicans have been rigging it at every level since 2010, this is a potential crisis and the Constitution can't stop it.
But he keeps telling us we can! Look at all these tweets of his about the stock market. Here's just one recent example: "The Stock Market just reached an All-Time High during my Administration for...
Furthermore, a president's day to day performance cannot he determined by the stock market.
Of course he's wrong! The performance of the stock market is effected by many factors, only some of which can be influenced by the government. And even the factors which the government can...
Of course he's wrong! The performance of the stock market is effected by many factors, only some of which can be influenced by the government. And even the factors which the government can influence sometimes take months or even years to produce an effect (some of the current changes in the stock market may be being influenced by a previous government's actions).
However, Trump has effectively told us to judge his performance by the performance of the stock market. If he wants to claim the credit for the up-swings, he should also take the blame for the down-swings.
I agree with you that we can not judge a US president's day to day performance by the short-term movements of the American stock market. Now, with that out of the way... President Trump has asked...
I agree with you that we can not judge a US president's day to day performance by the short-term movements of the American stock market.
Now, with that out of the way...
President Trump has asked us to judge him in this way. He is taking credit for the up-swings in the American stock market. Maybe if we also hold him accountable for the down-swings, he'll stop trying to take credit for the up-swings. Maybe some other people will realise the inconsistency involved in giving the president credit for positive movements in stock prices but not giving him blame for negative movements.
If you live by the swordstock market, you die by the swordstock market.
Troops sent to border, anchor baby battle. Desperate moves to rile up his base.
Exactly. His first two years are mostly a disappointment, even to his base, for the most part. Rare, unpopular, legislative victories, hugely unpopular Supreme Court pick, etc. This stuff is red meat for his base to get them fired up as recent polls have shown his approval rating tanking.
His core base still love him.
True but his core base alone is probably not enough on it's own to secure Republican mid-term elections. He needs wider appeal.
He won't. That would require him to admit to himself that he's doing something wrong and that the vast majority of Americans don't love him already.
Someone needs to tell the President that "executive orders" aren't magic. I feel like he's been throwing the term around with wild abandon because he doesn't know any other way to get things done.
One one hand there is the 14th amendment, on the other anchor babies are a problem and need to be dealt with. If he intends to only target children where both parents are illegal immigrants, I see no issue. If the parents are legal residents, or at least one parent is a legal resident, the kid should be a citizen. No further comment is required.
We also need to look at the context of the 14th amendment if we want to see if what he proposes is unconstitutional. We also need to take a look at is this a thing that the President can do with an executive order, or is it something Congress should be doing.
My personal answer is it's unconstitutional due to fact that the President is doing it with an executive order, not the idea itself is unconstitutional.
Edit: typo
hat's a bold statement to make. Immigration in and of itself a good thing. I have no problem with immigration, I have a problem with ILLEGAL immigration. The US government has the right to say who enters it's country. Hence it not being hypocritical abusit the laws about immigration that are already on the books.
It's not getting rid of an amendment of the Constitution, it's challenging it. If someone has a problem with it it goes to court and they decide if it constitutional. This has been done many times in the past, it's part of how the government operates. It's designed to be this way. A good example of this is FDR's new deal.
I'm not making a claim one way or the other I'm setting up a question for debate. It's obviously in the gray area of is this what the 14th ammendmet said. A good example of this is the 2nd ammendmet, we have been arguing about what it means for the past 50 years? Hell, we have been arguing about what the 1st ammendmet is for the past 200 years. What makes the 14th ammendmet different?
What are the reason and arguments for each side? That's what I want to know.
They decide if the Constitution is Constitutional?
"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."
They can only interpret the Constitution, not overrule it. It would be a pretty wild interpretation to decide in favor of Trump.
The key part is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What that part of the statement means is up for debate.
Native Americans born on US soil aren't eligible for US citizenship. The reasoning behind it is that they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the US government.
Similarly children of diplomats to the US don't get citizenship. It's not a clear cut case and an argument can be made both ways.
Agreed. But the Supreme Court has made rulings that are clearly unconstitutional and then went back and revised those rulings after the fact. Again I bring up what occurred with FDR and the new deal. Those rulings were overuled later on. So this kind of political partisanship is nothing new.
There is precedent regarding the meaning of that phrase. A re-interpretation would be thrusting unsupported de novo meaning upon it and would only be a transparent fig leaf attempting to cover an interpretation that is clearly not in good faith.
Here's a constitutional law professor's take on the matter:
The Fourteenth Amendment Can’t Be Revoked by Executive Order
There's some good discussion on Reddit too.
(Link intended for my future reference, not to move the discussion elsewhere.)
I mean if he makes an executive order and it's illegal/unconstitutional the courts will decide that the same way they did with the "Muslim ban". The system is working as intended. I don't see the big deal.
I personally think that his point is in the spirit of the law. As stated by the examples given above. The Congressional transcript of the discussions of the 14th ammendmet support his point of view. Even though I agree with his position, the way you accomplish something like this is you go to the legislative branch and they pass a law.
The problem with that system is that the legislative branch has stopped writing laws. Because of that there is now a power vacuum that the judicial branch and the executive branch are fighting over. A good example of this is the legalization of gay marriage through the Supreme Court. This also occurrs in the executive branch with the EPA using the clean ait act to try to impose a carbon tax.
All of the ideas stated above are something I agree with and support, but the ends don't justify the means. If you want legalization of gay marriage go vote and elect Congressmen and women who will pass a bill to legalize it. If you want a carbon tax go pass a bill in Congress that states that. Don't kick it over to the judicial branch/executive branch respectfully.
That is downright false, Native Americans are citizens.
I can't link to the specific question but it's here: https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
They are, but their citizenship wasn't granted by the 14th amendment, it was granted by the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.
That doesn't apply to children of immigrants. They are born on US (non-Tribal) land and subject to US jurisdiction just by being there.
I'm, uh, aware of that, I was just giving some background info on how native americans got citizenship. I'm not the same person you were replying to.
Immigrants aren't real "persons". Only white people are. BOOM! Problem solved. [/s]
And corporations! Don't forget the corporations!
(Still /s)
And fertilized eggs! Don't forget the embryos!
This was done by many countries. In France for example, children born of 2 non-French parents are not given French citizenship, since the mid-1980s or so.
That doesn't make it right.
The difference in this case is the constitutional amendment that the executive order would be against.
There are side effects to getting rid of birthright citizenship. You're potentially creating this underclass of stateless people, descended from undocumented immigrants but having lived their entire lives in the united states, who exist in a permanent state of legal limbo.
This is actually a big problem in Thailand. A large part of why there are so many child prostitutes in Thailand is because the hill-tribe communities tend to be populated by stateless residents, the children of Myanmar immigrants and refugees who were refused citizenship due to discrimination, and because their parents are not citizens, the children are not, either. As a result, they cannot go to public schools, and their career options are very limited. Prostitution is one of the only ways to make enough money to support your family with no knowledge of the Thai or English languages and no education.
Revoking birthright citizenship will have consequences down the road. We might not end up in the same sad state as Thailand, but there will be a large underclass of people working in horrifying conditions who will never have rights in any country. They cannot legally be deported since nobody will take them, so they'll end up working for pennies on the dollar doing difficult jobs whilst politicians who rail against illegal immigrants undercutting American workers and committing crimes literally cannot stop this.
Because "violating our sovereignty" is an imagine crime that harms no one.
You can do it without an amendment as long as you've got the supreme court on your side.
Considering the 14th Amendment is pretty explicit regarding citizenship ("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."), a Supreme Court that rules in favor of an executive order rescinding such citizenship risks delegitimazing itself in perpetuity.
I mean, I don't think it would happen but I wouldn't be that surprised if it did, you know? A substantial number of people already view the senate and possibly the executive itself as illegitimate, and the judiciary is already teetering on the edge.
Delegitimizing itself in whose eyes? The 40+% of the country that wants it to happen? The Republican Secretaries of State making sure enough of the other 60% isn't allowed to vote? The Democrats who are too chickenshit to do anything about it (the SC's ruling, sure they'd repeal the EO) even if they had power?
Republicans don't care about legitimacy except when it helps them. They'll happily tear apart the Constitution and that's what they are going to do.
At this point Democrats taking back the House is iffy, let alone taking back the Senate or Presidency. Republicans have been rigging it at every level since 2010, this is a potential crisis and the Constitution can't stop it.
What are you basing this on? Most recent 538 estimate puts it at 86%.
But he keeps telling us we can! Look at all these tweets of his about the stock market. Here's just one recent example: "The Stock Market just reached an All-Time High during my Administration for the 102nd Time, a presidential record, by far, for less than two years." He is linking the stock market's performance to his own performance as President.
Of course he's wrong! The performance of the stock market is effected by many factors, only some of which can be influenced by the government. And even the factors which the government can influence sometimes take months or even years to produce an effect (some of the current changes in the stock market may be being influenced by a previous government's actions).
However, Trump has effectively told us to judge his performance by the performance of the stock market. If he wants to claim the credit for the up-swings, he should also take the blame for the down-swings.
I agree with you that we can not judge a US president's day to day performance by the short-term movements of the American stock market.
Now, with that out of the way...
President Trump has asked us to judge him in this way. He is taking credit for the up-swings in the American stock market. Maybe if we also hold him accountable for the down-swings, he'll stop trying to take credit for the up-swings. Maybe some other people will realise the inconsistency involved in giving the president credit for positive movements in stock prices but not giving him blame for negative movements.
If you live by the
swordstock market, you die by theswordstock market.This isn't quite true, since the tariffs have hurt the stock market and he is the sole genesis of them.