Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship

[_EAllusion]

Lindsey Graham is promising to introduce legislation to the same effect. On the one hand, it's so obviously a stunt to drive the conversation in the last week leading into the midterm on more friendly turf than what the media could instead be talking about. On the other, the fact that advocating for stripping people of their lawful citizenship is viewed as a viable stunt is both appalling and genuinely a significant story unto itself. I'm not sure how you get out of this dilemma from a journalistic perspective.

While it's clear that it's better for Republicans to have the media focusing on an immigration theme than, say, the fact that they are collectively involved in near sociopathic lying about preexisting conditions, I'm not convinced that this is the ideal playing ground for them. Virginia Republicans trying to run on immigration scare-tactics just last year blew up in their face. The majority of the public opposes current Republican immigration policy and on the more extreme stuff by huge numbers. The xenophobic base isn't *that* big. I don't know if the thought is that it worked against Clinton when she should've won in a landslide, but her being covered by the press like she was Nixon in the middle of the Watergate and even-election fundamentals had a lot to do with that. I find it hard to believe there isn't some other topic that wouldn't be a better thing for them to stunt.

[_moksha]

No, mainly because it is contrary to current law enacted by Congress.

It's a campaign stunt for the midterms.

This was all I took it as too. As an executive order it might not even make it to Supreme Court anyways, couldn't the next administration (assuming it is different) just override it, not unlike many of Obama's orders? This seems like a very short term play.

Trump took his travel ban executive order to the Supreme Court, and this new court is now Trump friendly.

[_EAllusion]

People love cops. Why not some stunt executive order that frees up police to murder more people with impunity? Civil libertarians will go nuts, the base would love it, and public sentiment would be friendly. There’s more effective ways to engage in amoral electioneering.

That it’s extreme immigration stuff suggests poor understanding of public opinion, a genuine ideological crusade, or, most likely, both.

[_Chap]

In my ignorance, I thought I had better look at the US constitution:

http://constitutionus.com

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(My bolding)

That seems absolutely clear to me. On what precise legal basis could Trump over-ride that clause?

Am I missing something? Short of a constitutional amendment, how come we are in the second page of a discussion about this? What's to discuss?

[_EAllusion]

In my ignorance, I thought I had better look at the US constitution:

http://constitutionus.com

Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(My bolding)

That seems absolutely clear to me. On what precise legal basis could Trump over-ride that clause?

Am I missing something? Short of a constitutional amendment, how come we are in the second page of a discussion about this? What's to discuss?

They misread and/or lie about the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s meant to exclude children if diplomats and similar situations, but they think it can be applied to children of illegal aliens.

It’s not gonna fly now, but it’s not unthinkable that courts could be sufficiently friendly in a generation. A lot of crazy is getting funneled onto the bench.

[_EAllusion]

So what happens when this happens in Ajax fantasyland? Those children don’t belong to any other nations either. They become a stateless, isolated underclass. This does happen in Europe and it’s bad. All other arguments aside, what’s the plan to deal with that?

[_SteelHead]

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowit ... r6kYziIgpE

Funny

[_ajax18]

So what happens when this happens in Ajax fantasyland? Those children don’t belong to any other nations either. They become a stateless, isolated underclass. This does happen in Europe and it’s bad. All other arguments aside, what’s the plan to deal with that?

They always used to tell me that, "Colombia was bienvenidos a todo el mundo." I'm sure they'd take them back. If all else fails they could come over and live at your place. You just might have to postpone your retirement a bit. I'm sure you wouldn't mind given your humanitarian feelings.

[_Kevin Graham]

They always used to tell me that, "Colombia was bienvenidos a todo el mundo." I'm sure they'd take them back. If all else fails they could come over and live at your place. You just might have to postpone your retirement a bit. I'm sure you wouldn't mind given your humanitarian feelings.

Responses like these is why no one takes you as a serious person. Just a pathetic bigot and racist.

[_Analytics]

I think the paradigm has always been the 1% v. 99% with the Republicans traditionally playing the CEO role and the Pelosi/Schumer democrats playing the role of corrupt union bosses charged with the task of selling the masses on the latest hope and change fraud. Sorry, no increase in wages while your expenses forever increase. Meanwhile, let's talk about the latest made for T.V. political drama starring Trump and the Pelosi/Schumer crew.

There are certain issues that we cannot talk about, like the unnecessary military budget and the wars that transfer wealth up to the 1%. Syrian refugees flood europe because of our war for a gas pipeline over there. We can't talk about why Hondurans want to leave their plantation for somewhere else because our "patriotic" 1% caused the mess down there in support of Chiquita Banana/United Fruit's desire to have cheap labor. How about we allow actual democracy down there and let the people in Honduras decide how they want to use their land? Maybe by allowing immigrant populations to actually control their own countries without the american neoliberal overlords that both the left and right support, will there be a resolution to the immigration issue? My clients don't necessarily want to leave Mexico, but NAFTA threw them off of the land they farmed so big agriculture could come in and take over. Now drugs and corruption rule due in part to a dark alliance.

In the meantime, this executive order is merely a last minute political wedge designed to drive Trump supporters to the polls.

+1