TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Mendalla said:
But he's not skipping Congress to change the Constitution. He cannot constitutionally do that. A constitutional change in the US requires both houses and all 50 states. The 14th amendment will be unchanged regardless of what he does.

What he is doing is implementing legislation to interpret and enforce the 14th amendment in a certain way. He knows that even many Republicans reject that interpretation so the legislation would probably fail, esp. if they lose a house next week (yes, it's that close). Hence the executive order.

But, again, the 14th amendment will not change. What will change is how the government interprets and enforces it.
Click to expand...
Which is bad enough, but more than likely he is grand standing for the mid term elections and playing to the fears of "his" crowd that support his hard line on immigration.
 
Waterfall said:
Which is bad enough, but more than likely he is grand standing for the mid term elections and playing to the fears of "his" crowd that support his hard line on immigration.
Click to expand...

Likely. Same as this whole sending the army to the border thing.
 
One point about birthright: We are the only other G7 country to offer it and Andrew Scheer has already mused about limiting it here, as did the Liberals in 1998 and the previous Conservative government in 2013. Unlike in the US, there's no constitutional clause guaranteeing it. Jus soli (as it's called in legal lingo) is just part of the citizenship act. As long as they don't try to make it retroactive or something (which could be unconstitutional on other grounds) they should be safe.
 
I was just going to say that. Most countries do not give citizenship to babies born I;the country if at least one parents isn’t a citizen

The issue of pregnancy visits for birth isn’t common but it happens
 
Mendalla said:
One point about birthright: We are the only other G7 country to offer it and Andrew Scheer has already mused about limiting it here, as did the Liberals in 1998 and the previous Conservative government in 2013. Unlike in the US, there's no constitutional clause guaranteeing it. Jus soli (as it's called in legal lingo) is just part of the citizenship act. As long as they don't try to make it retroactive or something (which could be unconstitutional on other grounds) they should be safe.
Click to expand...
Not sure if the US is in the same predicament but I know Canada will eventually need to increase it's tax base.:whistle:
 
Waterfall said:
Not sure if the US is in the same predicament but I know Canada will eventually need to increase it's tax base.:whistle:
Click to expand...

But the argument from the conservative side is that you do that with an efficient, managed immigration system (which, really, we do have), not by allowing anyone who is born here, whether their parents have immigrated properly or not, to get citizenship.
 
Mendalla said:
But he's not skipping Congress to change the Constitution. He cannot constitutionally do that. A constitutional change in the US requires both houses and all 50 states. The 14th amendment will be unchanged regardless of what he does.

What he is doing is implementing legislation to interpret and enforce the 14th amendment in a certain way. He knows that even many Republicans reject that interpretation so the legislation would probably fail, esp. if they lose a house next week (yes, it's that close). Hence the executive order.

But, again, the 14th amendment will not change. What will change is how the government interprets and enforces it.
Click to expand...

A constitutional amendment actually requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress but only three quarters of the states, not all fifty - thus thirty eight states.

Article 5 of the United States Constitution said:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress ...
Click to expand...

And Trump isn't proposing legislation. That would take the fight out of his hands and he'd never get it passed anyway because even a lot of Republicans wouldn't go for that. He's quite serious about an Executive Order. For now he hopes that the threat of an Executive Order on this subject will rile up his base to get out and vote Republican next Tuesday. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if it becomes more than a threat. He could well issue an Executive Order eliminating birthright citizenship sometime after the election. It would then be immediately challenged in court. It would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by whatever judge heard the case first. It would start working its way up the appellate system, almost certainly being declared unconstitutional again and again - once more riling up his base to a fever pitch, allowing him to denounce the "activist" judges, setting him up for his bid for re-election in 2020. Mark my words.

There are some (a small minority) of legal scholars who believe that Trump could act on this by Executive Order. They argue that while he can't amend the constitution, this wouldn't be an amendment to the Constitution but an interpretation of the Constitution. Article 14 says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ..." The key phrase they'd argue is "... subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."

The argument is that as children, and as the children of undocumented immigrants, they aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of the [United States.]" I think it's a flimsy and ridiculous argument. If you're in the United States you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Unless you're a diplomat. I suspect that's what the amendment was meant to address - children born to foreign diplomats even in the 1860's when Article 14 was approved. Foreign diplomats aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the host country, and I suspect that the amendment was meant to say that a child born to a foreign diplomat was not subject to US jurisdiction, and therefore would not be a citizen of the US. But undocumented immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction (otherwise, they couldn't be deported) and so, logically, so are their children. So that argument fails.

Some have argued that Article 14 needs to be interpreted in context: in 1868 when it was approved it was meant to defend the voting rights of former black slaves. Therefore it should be read only in that context. But the Supreme Court long ago rejected that argument. In an 1898 case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 14 applied to a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not American citizens. Chinese immigrants at the time were not eligible for American citizenship. But the Supreme Court said in that case that their children, if born in the United States, were indeed American citizens.

The vast majority (the overwhelming consensus) of legal scholars say that Trump can't eliminate birthright citizenship by Executive Order. But he doesn't want to eliminate it. He wants to be seen putting up a fight to eliminate it - and those are a couple of the arguments that he and his cult will put forward.
 
revsdd said:
A constitutional amendment actually requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress but only three quarters of the states, not all fifty - thus thirty eight states.



And Trump isn't proposing legislation. That would take the fight out of his hands and he'd never get it passed anyway because even a lot of Republicans wouldn't go for that. He's quite serious about an Executive Order. For now he hopes that the threat of an Executive Order on this subject will rile up his base to get out and vote Republican next Tuesday. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if it becomes more than a threat. He could well issue an Executive Order eliminating birthright citizenship sometime after the election. It would then be immediately challenged in court. It would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional by whatever judge heard the case first. It would start working its way up the appellate system, almost certainly being declared unconstitutional again and again - once more riling up his base to a fever pitch, allowing him to denounce the "activist" judges, setting him up for his bid for re-election in 2020. Mark my words.

There are some (a small minority) of legal scholars who believe that Trump could act on this by Executive Order. They argue that while he can't amend the constitution, this wouldn't be an amendment to the Constitution but an interpretation of the Constitution. Article 14 says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ..." The key phrase they'd argue is "... subject to the jurisdiction thereof ..."

The argument is that as children, and as the children of undocumented immigrants, they aren't "subject to the jurisdiction of the [United States.]" I think it's a flimsy and ridiculous argument. If you're in the United States you're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Unless you're a diplomat. I suspect that's what the amendment was meant to address - children born to foreign diplomats even in the 1860's when Article 14 was approved. Foreign diplomats aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the host country, and I suspect that the amendment was meant to say that a child born to a foreign diplomat was not subject to US jurisdiction, and therefore would not be a citizen of the US. But undocumented immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction (otherwise, they couldn't be deported) and so, logically, so are their children. So that argument fails.

Some have argued that Article 14 needs to be interpreted in context: in 1868 when it was approved it was meant to defend the voting rights of former black slaves. Therefore it should be read only in that context. But the Supreme Court long ago rejected that argument. In an 1898 case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 14 applied to a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were not American citizens. Chinese immigrants at the time were not eligible for American citizenship. But the Supreme Court said in that case that their children, if born in the United States, were indeed American citizens.

The vast majority (the overwhelming consensus) of legal scholars say that Trump can't eliminate birthright citizenship by Executive Order. But he doesn't want to eliminate it. He wants to be seen putting up a fight to eliminate it - and those are a couple of the arguments that he and his cult will put forward.
Click to expand...
Totally like Biblical interpreting lol

All Else is Commentary but What Commentary,
Inannawhimsey
 
Waterfall said:
Which is bad enough, but more than likely he is grand standing for the mid term elections and playing to the fears of "his" crowd that support his hard line on immigration.
Click to expand...
Ah look at what excitement 45 brings into our hobbitish lives

What would our lives b like without him?

24 7 45. *shudder*

Deity Speed Mother Nature,
Inannawhimsey
 
revsdd said:

Presumably like it was before him - much more pleasant.
Click to expand...
Yeah
Complete strangers wouldn't spontaneously talk aboot 45 with me lol oh for those days again
And we'd all still b focussing on which parts of the world we deem horrific and which we deem alright and so on...which genocide is important which isn't...like zorba said "life the full catastrophe" lol

Btw I just heard an interview where the interviewee made a prediction (and educated guess) that (with the assumptions that oligarchies--money--is the main driver behind politics in USA currently) these algorithms r going to b rendering oligarchy more powerless because it will b the algorithms (and their supreme ability to manipulate humans and mass behaviour) that will be the main driving force of US politics. And that eventually POTII (plural of POTUS??? lol) will have to do the publicz bidding (who will b controlled by the algorithms) or be out of a job. I found the notion both fascinating (just how skilled can these algos be? Can they be more just and moral and ethical than us corrupt humans etc?) And chilling.

Black Mirror was right,
Inannawhimsey
 
Inannawhimsey said:
To help with the insane anxiety levels:


US military intelligencs documents say troops heading the Mexican US border to deal with US citizen ARMED WHITE SUPREMACISTS (the real white supremacists, not the new slang ones)

US citizens helping protect the defenceless

Border troops bracing for possible clashes with armed crackpot militias of U.S. citizens, not Migrant Caravan

Majorly Minor,
Inannawhimsey
Click to expand...

Is this uncivil disturbance between the unconnected nation of bullies? The house divided is divinated to fall ... there shall be tears ... and water was found there!
 
CBC's Eric Grenier's analysis of prospects for this week's midterms. They tally well with numbers and analysis the Economist has been posting. Basically, if things hold up, the Dems get the House but the GOP keeps its slim majority in the Senate. Though Grenier suggests a good showing for the Dems tomorrow could set them up to take the Senate in 2020. Still, it all comes down to the voters showing up.

Democrats on track to take House - but Senate might be out of reach | CBC News
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top