Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Bill Carson, May 30, 2023.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, those are the central points made in the constitution, so yes - when there are attempts to ignore the constitution, I'll probably not let that go very easily.

    That's not partisanship. And beyond that, I see the possibility of wanting some amount of modification to the citizenship clause.

    But, that IS the clause today.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2023
  2. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113

    This is about constitutional interpretation. We disagree about that. I happen to have an originalist view of constitutional interpretation, and you apparently have a if-it-feels-good-do-it view.
     
    Bill Carson and ButterBalls like this.
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't agree with that assessment AT ALL.

    There was disagreement on what the clause should allow. But, those who wanted further limitations didn't prevail.
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Besides that, I pointed out to you that I would not have written the clause as it was ratified.

    You can't then accuse me of the crap you just accused me of.
     
  5. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh yes, feelz. It's where the left starts and ends with their Constitutional "interpretation".

    I linked the ARK case and listed all three Supreme Court cases that are central to the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment.

    Others have offered opinion pieces.

    I quoted from the SC cases and the drafter of the 14th Amendment.

    Others spoke about feelz.

    As with any topic on the Constitution, one side refuses to have an honest conversation. Either they don't understand the Constitution must be interpreted using the meanings of words at the time they were written or they know what the words mean and purposely spew CCN-type propaganda as a means to an end.

    Trump's proposed EO is legal. :flagus:
     
  6. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agreed with everything up to the last point. I don't think you can change Birthright citizenship by an executive order, it would require a change in 8 U.S. Code § 1401.

    upload_2023-6-10_8-12-8.png

    Let me explain my reasoning for that.

    8 U.S. Code § 1401 copies the language of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Since the language everyone is fighting over is the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" we know in the 1860's what they meant from Congressional record of the debates, and they didn't mean foreigners.

    But that same text in 8 U.S. Code § 1401 was made in the 1950's. As you can see in the 30 plus pages here, most of the left thinks that means anyone subject to US law in the US, which included everyone in the world. It's arguable that the Congress in the 1950's thought the same thing.

    So I can see an originalist Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment does not require citizenship for the kids of foreigners, but that 8 U.S. Code § 1401 does.

    So you need to change the law.
     
  7. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That makes no sense Mike. 8 USC 1401 copies the language of the 14th Amendment but since it was made in the 1950's then the Constitution changed? Is that what you're saying? Because that's what you said. There is NOTHING in 8 USC 1401 that says the babies of illegal aliens are US citizens. To the contrary, it does spell out citizenship for Indians to comply with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 at 8 USC 1401(b).

    Until you show me a section of the law that pertains to illegals, the law wouldn't need to be changed. It doesn't matter what 30 pages of 'feels' has to say, it matters what the Constitution says. Even 8 USC 1401 doesn't give citizenship to illegals/anchor babies.

    Congress could have included anchor babies in 8 USC 1401 (which likely wouldn't have withstood a legal challenge in the SC), but they didn't. The law doesn't have to be changed, but the Constitution needs to be enforced which can be done with an EO. It can be easily argued the Trump proposed EO is enforcement of 8 USC 1401 because 1401 gives all the categories of people who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.....and illegal aliens aren't on the list, just like ambassadors.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401#:~:text=a person born before noon,resided in the United States.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2023
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well which is the better strategy? To have a President signing an executive order, it is stayed and eventually goes up to the Supreme Court, or have Congress actually change the law, then let it go to the Supreme Court? Either way, it's going to the Supreme Court, and I think you have a much stronger case if the issue is a law rather than an executive order...one that the next President could (and likely will) just repeal anyway.
     
  9. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is only one strategy because Congress will never amend 8 USC 1401 to include the babies of illegal aliens. Doing so is political suicide. Obviously since 8 USC 1401 doesn't currently include anchor babies, a Trump EO is nothing more than executing the law as currently written. If you noticed what he said in the video, he is explicitly talking about an EO that not only executes the law as written, but also adheres to ARK, the fake law as written by the SC. This is not some off-the-cuff EO he's talking about, there has been some thorough legal analysis behind this idea.
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LilMike is right. Such an EO wouldn't pass SC review.
     
  11. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I guess we'll find out, now won't we?

    Just like Roe would never be overturned...
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2023
  12. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Since we know this would be going to the Supreme Court no matter what, I'm just trying to set the groundwork for a better case and an EO isn't it.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  13. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not? It will never go if you are relying on Congress. Would you rather a President sit on his ass and let the country be invaded and ruined by anchor babies?

    Congress makes the laws, they don't enforce them. There's nothing for Congress to do as the current law doesn't spell out birthright citizenship for illegal alien children.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2023
  14. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, law can be differentially enforced. But, that enforcement has to be within the constitution.

    We see the young children of undocumented aliens growing to do amazing things through college and industry as well as serving the defense of our nation in the military.
     
  15. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we go your route, here's what I think will happen: The Court will rule that an executive order can't determine birthright citizenship, and as a consequence, they'll declare that 8 USC 1401 does grant birthright citizenship.

    So that puts it back to changing the law anyway.

    I mean, what do you expect to happen? Trump couldn't even get rid of DACA which was created by a Homeland Security memo, not even an executive order. How exactly do you see the legal fight is going to go? Thumps up all the way until the Supreme Court says no problem? That seems a very unlikely in my opinion.
     
    WillReadmore likes this.
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump does seem to promote the idea that he, as president, can do any damn thing he wants.
     
  17. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Court will rule that the EO is enforcing the Constitution and all current binding SC precedents, including ARK. Nothing in 8 USC 1401 gives explicit citizenship to illegal alien anchor babies, you must concede that.

    This isn't hard, no matter how much the left wants it to be. Just because the Constitution isn't enforced now that doesn't mean illegal alien babies have birthright citizenship. That's insane, just as most every other country in the world believes and operates. Unconditional birthright citizenship is a direct assault on a country's sovereignty.
     
  18. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well as his term as President shows, he can't. He couldn't even get rid of DACA, which by all rights was well within his authority as President. Birthright citizenship is a much higher hill to climb than DACA.
     
  19. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I do concede that there is nothing specific in 8 U.S. Code § 1401 that mandates Birthright citizenship, but that's almost beside the point. The issue will fall on how the Supreme Court interprets both the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S. Code § 1401. I feel confident on the 14th, but not on 1401 simply because of the near century since the text was originally written and when that (same) text was passed as a law by Congress.

    Why do you want to waste so much time on an EO that has no chance of actually standing? It'll be three or four years from the President's signature to a Supreme Court hearing, and you are risking that the Court may just decide to declare Birthright citizenship an actual right. You may say "they can't do that" but they've made up stuff before, so it seems for some reason you are taking the riskiest path to get what you want. If you change the law, you actually have the law to argue in front of the court, against the 14th Amendment, not both.

    If your argument is that Congress won't pass it, then you are basically conceding that it's never going to happen, EO or no EO.
     
  20. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, no, no Mike. Congress doesn't need to pass it.

    You don't seem to get it, respectfully. There's nothing wrong with the existing law, 8 USC 1401. It does not spell out any birthright citizenship to illegal alien children. You concede that. It also doesn't spell out any birthright citizenship to ambassador's children. Get it? What you also fail to realize is that ambassador's children, in fact, do get citizenship because there is no enforcement mechanism in place.

    That's where an EO is needed, when there is no enforcement mechanism. All an EO would do is enforce of the current law and Constitution. And that's what Presidents are sworn to do.

    There is no federal law written that doesn't have a Constitutional founding. If it's not in the Constitution, then Congress doesn't have the authority to make a law for whatever isn't there. The 10th Amendment plainly states that if it ain't in the Constitution, then it's within the purview of the States.

    If Congress wants to give birthright citizenship to illegal alien children, then they can amend 8 USC 1401. But as of right now, there is NO law on the books granting birthright citizenship to illegal alien babies, and rightfully so.

    What is on the books is Supreme Court precedent. 3 of them. And the one used by the left is the ARK case. But the ARK case only dealt with a child born from legal residents. Not illegal. So ARK is not on point and is not precedent for illegal alien children.

    All that is left is the 14th Amendment, and you firmly believe it doesn't grant birthright citizenship to illegal alien children. I agree.

    An EO on this stands a very good chance of a SC challenge. If it failed, it would be because the lefty mobs were threatening the justices, again.

    Or we can get another limp-wristed RINO in office and let the country be overtaken by the party of the KKK and turned into a forever shithole because of illegal immigration and anchor babies. Your choice.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2023
  21. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting there is a difference between Trump and DeSantis?
     
  22. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    52,179
    Likes Received:
    23,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK I was trying to offer a possible strategy for getting Birthright citizenship removed as the status quo. If you think an EO is the best strategy; fine. I disagree but on the other hand it's a moot point since there will never be an EO for this.
     
  23. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If Trump doesn't get re-elected, then yes it will be moot. The country will eventually be overrun and the standard of living will continue to go down (as it has been for decades now) and we'll eventually have an unrepairable shithole to live in.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  24. Bill Carson

    Bill Carson Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    6,504
    Likes Received:
    5,125
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh hell yeah. DeSantis will turn instant swamp if he gets elected. He's not a leader, he's a follower. He won't touch the anchor baby issue.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,003
    Likes Received:
    16,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's been catering to the ultra right white nationalists on every issue he can find.

    He's even gone after private enterprise.

    He'll find it hard to flip. Nobody would believe him - except his own right wing supporters who he would be stabbing in the back.
     

Share This Page