Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

For most of our country's history, there was no such distinction. No one in this country's early history would even understand the proposal.

Then that would require a NEW amendment. The 14th makes no such distinction. If you want to make that distinction, you need a new amendment.

 

If you think the ruling is wrong, there is only one legal way to do this: challenge the ruling using the court system. It is not the Executive Branch to make laws or create new laws, which is what Trump is proposing and Trump acolytes like Lil Mike and Bill Carson are following lock, stop, and barrel, pun not intended here. However, I do think if you do challenge the ruling in a legal system, there is a 99% chance it will not go your way, even with a conservative Supreme Court.

 

Ironically, you just struck down Trump's entire legal basis for ending "birthright citizenship." Congrats.

 

Says the E1 who thinks they are an O9 lol

 

There was a ton of such discussion and debate centered around indians and foreign diplomats.

 

I agree that is probably correct. IMO Trump does not have the authority to challenge the court ruling through an Executive Order although he is merely following precedent begun decades ago and infamously enshrined by Obama who altered DACA (??) with an EO even though he publicly stated it would be unconstitutional. Biden issues EOs like they were candy. I think there is a very good chance a constitutionally focused SCOTUS will overturn the general aspect of the Ark ruling if a case ever arrives.
s

 

IMO Trump does not have the legal basis for an EO in this case.

 

LOL... So, let us be clear here then. Are you suggesting that SCOTUS judges can legislate in this manner? Are you suggesting that say Allito or Gorsuch could just write out anchor babies by adding a footnote to a case and reversing Brennan? Or for that matter, when a majority consensus decision is set down, are you ok whenever one of the majority wishes to change the law, they may do so in this manner under any context? It sure seems like this is what you are advocating for.

 

Yep, he sure is gonna end those anchor babies. lol

'Trump’s Dubious Promise to End Birthright Citizenship'

snip

"In a video posted to Truth Social, Trump revived an old promise, saying that on Day 1 of a new term as president, he would issue an executive order to end birthright citizenship for children born to parents in the country illegally. But as we wrote when Trump vowed to — but never did — issue such an executive order when he was president, most legal scholars believe such a change would require a constitutional amendment.

Ending birthright citizenship has been on Trump’s radar for years. When he was running for president back in 2015, Trump told then Fox News host Bill O’Reilly the issue has been “fully vetted now” and all that would be needed to end birthright citizenship was “an act of Congress.” But as we wrote at the time, most constitutional and immigration scholars said such a change would require a constitutional amendment, which is a higher bar than simple legislation. But, we noted, there were a few who agreed with Trump.'

Fast forward three years to 2018 and Trump, then serving as president, said in an interview with Axios that he was told by White House counsel that actually, birthright citizenship wouldn’t even need to be changed with legislation, that he could do it simply with an executive order. We wrote then that most constitutional scholars said he couldn’t do it via executive order, or if he did, it would likely be overturned by the courts.

Nonetheless, Trump said such an order was “in the process” and “it’ll happen.” But it didn’t.

cont:

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/trumps-dubious-promise-to-end-birthright-citizenship/

 

Until Theodore Roosevelt became president, Indians by the Constitution was specifically excluded if they were on "their land" which was a form of another country. But since the early 20th century, and by the Grace of Theodore Roosevelt, Indians were made US Citizens as a whole even though most did not want it. And yet, native Americans have a distinction in our armed forces during time of conflict despite all the discrimination that society brought.

Diplomats are designed not to obey our laws. That is why anything with a diplomatic plate, a consulate, an embassy to even a diplomatic car is considered by law that nation's territory. In NYC alone, there are some countries that have racked up millions of dollars of traffic violations and there is nothing the NYPD can do about it under the law. But if it is anyone else, yes they can.

 

Under the immigration code, the executive branch can determine who can and cannot be deportable. All DACA is, legally, is a permanent stay of deportation if they meet certain requirements but not given the Temporary Protective Status that was signed by George H.W. Bush in 1990 as a compromise to those who were coming ashore for asylum purposes but were not communist countries. Namely these were Costa Ricans and others in which the US had a vested national security interest. It is actually within the law to grant or end DACA status or any stay of deportation under the law through executive order. Not the same thing what Trump is doing at all.

 

I want to start out by saying you absolutely deserve this reply.

For the last time, the DS-157 is NOT correct. The current DS-157 is an application for special immigrant classification for Afghan SIVs, not tourists or anyone else. Just for Afghans!!!

Here's the fillable form:

https://eforms.state.gov/Forms/ds157.pdf

And instructions:

https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...fghan-siv-guidelines-ds-157-instructions.html

The DS-160 is the form used for ALL B1 business/B2 tourist visas. There is NO question in the form asking whether or not a woman is pregnant NOR is there a question about a woman's intent to birth a child in the US. You know why? Because it's NOT applicable. A NONimmigrant visa used for an anchor baby to IMMIGRATE is EXACTLY the reason it is illegal. It is no different than getting any other visa but using it as entry for another purpose, it's illegal!!

I've already been over the DS-160 with you, yet you insist repeating falsities. I have filled DS-160 forms for people and I have a pending DS-160 open in the system RIGHT NOW.

Here, fill one out yourself:

https://ceac.state.gov/GenNIV/Default.aspx

As to your Chinese Exclusion Act reference, yet again, ARK's parents were in the country LEGALLY before the Chinese Exclusion Act came into effect. Another part of the Constitution you also don't understand is the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Chinese Exclusion Act didn't apply to the ARKs.

 

Again, it has been a while but the form I was mentioning was introduced in the early 2000s by the GWB administration when DHS was first established. But the DS 160 does ask what is your purpose. If it is medical, you are required to provide what that medical reason is period. Government forms are also notorious for not being totally forthcoming either, very broad, and very vague. Thus, you may look at the form, but you don't know how to properly fill them out at all correctly given the question. All of these forms are now electronic and must be filed electronically with the photograph uploaded within 30 days generally, sometimes 60 days. But again, the purpose of the visit must be completed in the form DS 160 and that can include medical. There is no question that asked if one is pregnant vis a vis. government forms don't do that. And then you have to have the interview in which the consular officer may ask that question if he sees cause.

Second, you need to look at what inadmissibility is. The current definition of inadmissibility is found in 8 USC 1182. And those who are inadmissible cannot live as an immigrant in the US nor enter the US per the law. And that is what the Chinese Exclusion Act did, which made all Chinese Nationals inadmissible under the law. So, why would immigration ask Ark, prior to the court filing, that he can be accepted to live here but not acknowledge that he is a USC? You still have not answered that question.

 

Trump already promised to do this in 2016.

He tried to do it in 2018, to no avail.

The Magadonians are so foolish, they are falling for the same crap again. He doesn't even have to make new promises or pretend he kept the old ones.

 

Failed yet again.

You are not required to explain what the medical reason is on the form...period. That question is for the consular officer. Having an anchor baby is NOT a medical reason. And this is the current regulation in place.

I just opened the form and verified. Do not even reply.

Second, failed again and again. You need to learn what Ex Post Facto means.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_...om passing any laws which apply ex post facto.

You're boring me . Maybe @Lil Mike will educate you for a while now

 

E-7 actually, but in any case, you're still wrong about the Chinese Exclusion Act making Kim Wong Ark "illegal." And it's hard to honestly believe you actually believed that.

 

Yes - that is the exception that the authors made.

Also, ambassadors and their families are not limited to embassies.

Asking them to leave isn't a punishment. Plus, we don't even do that for the small stuff.

 

No, I think that footnote was a statement of the obvious, so clear that it hardly warranted a footnote.

Read the citizenship clause of the 14th.

 

Read the last 22 pages.

 

The executive branch cannot do anything that violates US law or the Constitution.

 

https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate
Interesting that you 1) have no substantive argument against what was advanced by either source and 2) forgot a source. Almost like you didn't actually read anything.

So stop letting preggos come in the country. Guard the border. Do your ****ing job.

Again: Subject to the jurisdiction thereof means not a directly employed agent of a foreign power like an invading army or diplo. The Wong Kim Ark case speaks to that when it notes that Ark hasn't terminated his own citizenship by that act. The same would be true if that's how he was incepted IE if his parent was a diplo or invading army soldier.

Argue with the very conservative Cato Institute

HOW the **** are the supremes going to change it? There is ALREADY A RULE WITH INTERNAL LOGICAL STRUCTURE.
The exact thing you point out was brought up during passage and the response was "Yes we know it does that, that's the point, now ya'll shut the **** up while the adults are talking".
The secondary authorities the supremes use? Yeah, most of it is committee and passage hearings like that.
They don't just pull **** out of their asses.

 

None of which changes the explicit meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof which was ALREADY cited to. You've simply ignored it.

Congress had a long discussion, on the record, about this issue. The complaint was raised that the language would allow what you fear. They were told that was a feature not a bug and it passed.
Die mad about it.

 

This isn't a POLICY. Its constitutional law which requires an amendment to change because it is QUITE CLEAR.

Since when does anyone with a brain listen to a progressive? I'm not a progressive, don't think to try that weak whatabout bullshit with me. I'm also immune to when the progressives go "but Trump". See how that works? You'll need an actual logical argument that works constitutionally. You don't have one. So ya. wOrK oN tHaT

 

This is in fact quite false. As you're aware.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/birthright-citizenship-constitutional-mandate

 

Ambassadors, diplomats and their families and staff are all subject to arrest unless they are within their country's sovereign territory called the embassy (cars are debatable). I can't understand why you think deportation of a legal resident is not a punishment.