HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

[Granule]

See Don's children.

Where's the connection?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Where's the connection?

Born when dey baby mommas wasn't citizens.

 

[Granule]

Born when dey baby mommas wasn't citizens.

lol you're an idiot.

 

[Nose Picker]

This is long overdue. The word "jurisdiction" in the 14th amendment obviously means POLITICAL jurisdiction not legal jurisdiction. And kids born to illegals inherit the nationality of the mother and are under the political jurisdiction of her country.

You won't be missed.

 

[Flash]

That's easy. Children of illegal immigrants are also illegal immigrants by association, and therefore belong with their parents in their parents' native country. Deportation for all illegals, and deportation immediately.

Where in the Constitution does it say that children born in this country whose parents are illegal immigrants are automatically US citizens?

"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."

It makes no distinction between parents who are citizens, legal, or illegal immigrants.

And it is not just in the Constitution but also defined in federal immigration law.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;"

There is an extensive discussion of this issue earlier in this thread.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

lol you're an idiot.

You may want to go look into that before you embarrass yourself again publicly.

 

[CFM]

I contributed the information about the vagueness of the term "shall." What did you provide valuable?

The courts have often said "shall" means "may" and not "must" including interpretations of the Constitution. That is one of the big historical arguments and the reason that term is no longer used in current laws.

Since there has never been a case involving calling a convention we don't know any specifics, but what makes you think the use of "shall" in Article IV is any different than in Article V? And I never claimed it does not mean "must" in Article V, only saying the courts have never ruled on it but have ruled it means "may" in other constitutional provisions.

A more interesting question is whether Congress can limit a constitutional convention to certain designated issues. Some amendments were proposed by Congress because public support was heading toward states calling for a convention on that topic and Congress feared it could not limit the convention to that topic.

Good article on the subject:

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...l/1526330787/pdf_The_Other_Way.pdf?1526330787

You applied apples to oranges and when shown you did, you tried to paint the orange red.

The word shall is in all sorts of current laws. It means must because that's the definition of the word. Otherwise, the terminology would be "should". Perhaps you should study the difference.

If you read Article V, and it's evident you haven't done so, you will see the designated issues to which a convention could deal with. " . . shall call a convention for proposing amendments". The Article defines the limits unless you're going to say proposing amendments means something other than proposing amendment.

If you're claiming that more could be done because that's what happened in 1787 as the purpose then was to amend the Articles of Confederation, you should spend some time studying just how weak that document was. You're comparing apples and cars.

 

[Into the Night]

How can a child born in the United States be deported? It is a criminal violation to cross the border. And it is a civil violation to to overstay a visa (although usually border crossers are treated like visa overstays because of the difficulty of proving that they actually ever illegally crossed the border). This is why illegal immigration usually is not prosecuted as a crime, by the way. If it were a crime, it would require a trial and proof of lack of citizenship in court. Civil remedies, however, can be applied without a court case, the process is much more streamlined. And deportation is considered an acceptable civil penalty. If illegal immigration were treated as a crime, the courts would be backed up endlessly and enforcement would become impossible.

But a child born in the United States has done neither. What criminal or civil statutes have they violated? It cannot be against the law to merely exist. So what right does the US have to apply any criminal or civil penalties to this child, including deportation? What part of the constitution gives the government the ability to do so?

Yes. A child born in the United States can be deported, right along with it's mother.

 

[Nordberg]

No the president cannot do executive orders that refute the constitution. The courts would throw it out in a second. The Constitution is the law of the land. EOs cannot overrule that.

 

[Flash]

You applied apples to oranges and when shown you did, you tried to paint the orange red.

The word shall is in all sorts of current laws. It means must because that's the definition of the word. Otherwise, the terminology would be "should". Perhaps you should study the difference.

If you read Article V, and it's evident you haven't done so, you will see the designated issues to which a convention could deal with. " . . shall call a convention for proposing amendments". The Article defines the limits unless you're going to say proposing amendments means something other than proposing amendment.

If you're claiming that more could be done because that's what happened in 1787 as the purpose then was to amend the Articles of Confederation, you should spend some time studying just how weak that document was. You're comparing apples and cars.

If you think "shall" means "should" you have not studied the legal issues surrounding the term or Supreme Court decisions that ruled it means "may" in some provisions.

 

[domer76]

Yes. A child born in the United States can be deported, right along with it's mother.

Where do you deport a US citizen?

Link it up, Jethro.

 

[rjhenn]

Evidence?

There's tons of evidence for his violations of the emoluments clause. Every foreign player who stayed at a Trump property is evidence.

Mueller has no evidence, yet he has kept this investigation open for over a year.

Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton for four years, and all he came up with was Monica.

Hillary was selling uranium to the Soviets. She openly operated an email server containing state secrets on an unsecured server. Yet Mueller simply set aside her crimes. These were real instances of treason.

"These" were real instances of the lies and paranoia that are just about all we ever see from the right. Hillary did not sell uranium to the Soviets. The sale was a perfectly legal one that a committee that she was one member of approved. "the Soviets" (more paranoia. The Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.) had additional hoops to jump through in order to export any of that uranium. Her use of a private email server was standard State Department practice at the time. And Mueller made the investigation public, when he already knew it wasn't going anywhere and probably handed Trump the election.

The guy is obviously politically motivated. He has managed to completely discredit himself and unfortunately smeared the reputation of many fine officers of the FBI.

It's the lies and paranoia from you and the rest of the highly partisan right wing, desperate to discredit any potential critic of your god, Trump, that have smeared the reputation of the FBI and its officers.

 

[rjhenn]

So what? No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States or of any State.

You are being deliberately obtuse and just plain stupid.

 

[rjhenn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Guess all those golf games on our dime are just 'helping others', eh?

Trump has golfed more, and wasted more of "our dime" on it, and done so on his own properties, thus enriching himself, than Obama even dreamed of doing.

He ran on a platform of giving the people a voice. He promised he would modify the terrible trade agreements that Obama (and even Clinton) made. He promised to do something about immigration. He promised to bring jobs back to the U.S. He won the election. He is accomplishing what he set out to do. He is serving the people of this great nation.

He hasn't done anything to accomplish any of that. He's just taking credit for trends that were established before the election. And his trade policies are already hurting farmers.

Nope. He has only enforced the law on those that break the law. That's his job.

He complains that he can't use the law against the "fake news" media, called that because they dare to print the truth about him.

You really have your head buried in the sand, don't you? Not even an ostrich does that!

You're the one with your head buried in Trump's ass. And you are right about one thing and only one thing. Not even an ostrich would do that.

 

[rjhenn]

Are you confused? The 14th amendment doesn't grant naturalized citizenship to foreign nationals.. and has NOTHING to do with naturalization.. But, it does recognize (NOT grant) the US citizenship of children born on US soil under US jurisdiction.

As SCOTUS has already established, "under the jurisdiction of" does not include diplomats, or other employees of foreign powers, or tourists.

 

[kudzu]

As SCOTUS has already established, "under the jurisdiction of" does not include diplomats, or other employees of foreign powers, or tourists.

That's correct.. and it says so clearly in the Statute.

8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States ...

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

Has nothing to do with "tourists".. they are also under US jurisdiction not under the jurisdiction of their home countries.

 

[CFM]

If you think "shall" means "should" you have not studied the legal issues surrounding the term or Supreme Court decisions that ruled it means "may" in some provisions.

If you think that's what I said, you should get someone to read to you what was posted.

Shall means required. Period. If you don't accept the definition, you're a retard.

 

[Into the Night]

Please cite the provision that says states can dissolve the Constitution or create a new document without Congress calling for the constitutional convention.

It certainly is not in Article V.

You need no provision to dissolve a constitution!

 

[Into the Night]

No the president cannot do executive orders that refute the constitution. The courts would throw it out in a second. The Constitution is the law of the land. EOs cannot overrule that.

Trump has written no executive order that refutes anything in the Constitution of the United States nor of any State constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

...removed shouting font...
There's tons of evidence for his violations of the emoluments clause. Every foreign player who stayed at a Trump property is evidence.

Did you know it's legal for a foreigner to stay at a Trump property? You're going to have to do better than that!

Ken Starr investigated Bill Clinton for four years, and all he came up with was Monica.

Which had pretty convincing evidence against Bill Clinton, now that you mention it.

"These" were real instances of the lies and paranoia that are just about all we ever see from the right. Hillary did not sell uranium to the Soviets.

True. She sold it to the Russians.

The sale was a perfectly legal one that a committee that she was one member of approved.

No, the sale wasn't legal.

"the Soviets" (more paranoia. The Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.) had additional hoops to jump through in order to export any of that uranium.

The Russians didn't want to export it. Even if they did, they are in control of it at that point. There are no hoops to jump through.

Her use of a private email server was standard State Department practice at the time.

WRONG. Using a private email server for communicating State Department business is in direct violation of U.S. law.

And Mueller made the investigation public, when he already knew it wasn't going anywhere and probably handed Trump the election.

No. The electoral college handed Trump the election. Mueller is only one vote.

It's the lies and paranoia from you and the rest of the highly partisan right wing, desperate to discredit any potential critic of your god, Trump, that have smeared the reputation of the FBI and its officers.

No, they smeared themselves. It is YOU that is pushing lies and paranoia. Inversion fallacy.