WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Pull the Anchor!

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,149
Reaction score
124,223
Trump Plans To End Birthright Citizenship For Children Of Illegal Immigrants: Axios

In a report that essentially confirms some of the worst fears of American progressives, Axios said Tuesday that President Trump is planning to sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil...

Head explode.jpg


:)
 

Hullbilly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
7,719
Reaction score
12,660
Trump Plans To End Birthright Citizenship For Children Of Illegal Immigrants: Axios

In a report that essentially confirms some of the worst fears of American progressives, Axios said Tuesday that President Trump is planning to sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizens and unauthorized immigrants born on US soil...

View attachment 697475

:)


As it was always intended....jus soli was intended for those legally admitted dignataries, diplomats etc....not invaders.

Ohhhhh constitutional scholar where art thou
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,154
14th Amendment.

"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."

Despite protestations above, the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark specifically states that children born to legally present "dignitaries" or "diplomats" are specifically excluded from birthright citizenship as they are not subject to US Jurisdiction as they have diplomatic immunity.
 
Last edited:

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,149
Reaction score
124,223
14th Amendment.

"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."

AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof

The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'

Not owing allegiance to anybody else. If they're not a citizen, how can that be true?

tenor.gif
 

HotRod82

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,939
Reaction score
7,136
I think they are going to argue criminals here on US soil illegally are not under the jurisdiction of the US, therefore are not citizens.
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
2,796
The Dems are going to fuck this one up bigly...

First, one of the high profile Dems needs to be on TV this morning and candidly point out that Trump now wants to fight a war against unborn children and leave it at that...

Then they need to bundle some "clarifying" legislation that gives Trump exactly what he thinks he wants here bundled with a solid base for dreamers to launch from and a legal path for others.

Basically:

"Yes we agree... Birthright citizenship requires one of the parents be in the USA legally.... Here is how we do it."


This "Issue" is about 350,000 babies a year, doesn't impact the majority of trumps base in any personal manner, yet gives them something to be rabid about... Dems should not let a fabricated crisis become a thing.
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,149
Reaction score
124,223
This "Issue" is about 350,000 babies a year, doesn't impact the majority of trumps base in any personal manner

LMAO hand over mouth .gif


Yea, ONLY 350K a year.......................nothing to see here!!!!!
 

LargeOrangeFont

We aren't happy until you aren't happy
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
49,690
Reaction score
76,151
The Dems are going to fuck this one up bigly...

First, one of the high profile Dems needs to be on TV this morning and candidly point out that Trump now wants to fight a war against unborn children and leave it at that...

Then they need to bundle some "clarifying" legislation that gives Trump exactly what he thinks he wants here bundled with a solid base for dreamers to launch from and a legal path for others.

Basically:

"Yes we agree... Birthright citizenship requires one of the parents be in the USA legally.... Here is how we do it."


This "Issue" is about 350,000 babies a year, doesn't impact the majority of trumps base in any personal manner, yet gives them something to be rabid about... Dems should not let a fabricated crisis become a thing.


I actually agree with this as a good compromise path forward. And I also agree it wont happen. 350K is a lot of babies, and a huge expense to taxpayers however.
 

RodnJen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
6,044
Pre-election grandstanding. He’ll say anything for some “likes”.

I’m all for reform and a path, but I don’t see this EO sticking.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
Pre-election grandstanding. He’ll say anything for some “likes”.

I’m all for reform and a path, but I don’t see this EO sticking.
Then again, maybe he's just getting business done and checking items off his to do list. A concept quite foreign to the run of the mill politicians the office typically is filled by........
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
26,384
Reaction score
40,051
Pre-election grandstanding. He’ll say anything for some “likes”.

I’m all for reform and a path, but I don’t see this EO sticking.

You mean you're all for a path to citizenship.

You can't even choke that truth out here.

Fucking liar
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,154
I think they are going to argue criminals here on US soil illegally are not under the jurisdiction of the US, therefore are not citizens.

Let's for a second ignore the circular legal argument that those here illegally are not under US Jurisdiction, but can be detained and deported? In more simple terms they are under US jurisdiction when convenient and not under US Jurisdiction when not convenient.

With that said, the 14 Amendment does not relate to the individual here illegally; it relates to an unborn child inside the person which is then born on US soil. This has been repeatedly addressed by the Supreme Court in multiple cases. The court has ruled a defect in the status of a parent, does not extend to a child born here. Put more succinctly, a child born to a criminal is not him/her self a criminal.

The simple solution is to overturn the 14th amendment.
 

Angler

Tritoon Racing
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
5,154
Reaction score
11,856
Let's for a second ignore the circular legal argument that those here illegally are not under US Jurisdiction, but can be detained and deported? In more simple terms they are under US jurisdiction when convenient and not under US Jurisdiction when not convenient.

With that said, the 14 Amendment does not relate to the individual here illegally; it relates to an unborn child inside the person which is then born on US soil. This has been repeatedly addressed by the Supreme Court in multiple cases. The court has ruled a defect in the status of a parent, does not extend to a child born here. Put more succinctly, a child born to a criminal is not him/her self a criminal.

The simple solution is to overturn the 14th amendment.
Lies. Please show us the facts on your statement.. repeatedly addressed by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,532
Reaction score
95,367
Lies. Please show us the facts on your statement.. repeatedly addressed by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.

Oh now you’ve done it!!

The oracle...and ONLY the oracle...is the last word on constitutionality!!
As he sees fit and as he decrees...all other interpretations are out of bounds.
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,309
Reaction score
45,377
Here is the congressional record in question, starts in the middle collumn, about halfway down at Mr Howard:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

This aint so cut and dry as the wording is interpreted from the 14 in today's common definitions of the language. If attempted i have no doubt this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, it will be in their hands to decide what the amendment really means, we can all argue till we are blue in the face one way or the other.

That being said, this could just be Trump trying to get the left to defend anchor babies right before the midterms, which are not greatly favored by the population in general. He may just be getting them to poison their own well.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
Oh no!!!!!! Kav is gonna be involved in the final ruling. This will never end without more whining......:rolleyes:
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,149
Reaction score
124,223
Lies. Please show us the facts on your statement.. repeatedly addressed by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.

Yea, looking forward to that one too. ;)
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
Oh now you’ve done it!!

The oracle...and ONLY the oracle...is the last word on constitutionality!!
As he sees fit and as he decrees...all other interpretations are out of bounds.
Everytime we get a Constitutional comment from on high, I'm reminded how O was so highly regarded by the left as being a "Constitutional Scholar". Like the Nobel prize, the luster has worn thin on what it takes to be considered a expert.

If pigs could fly.......:rolleyes:
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,154
Lies. Please show us the facts on your statement.. repeatedly addressed by the Supreme Court in multiple cases.


The citizenship part of the 14th amendment has been addressed in Afroyim v. Rusk, Ark v. US, Perkins v. Elg, Elk v. Watkins, Plyer v. Doe and indirectly addressed in multiple others.

I don't give a shit either way. Sign the EO or have the Republican Majority file an Amendment to the Constitution.

With over 20 trillion in debt and a federal government now growing twice the rate of the rest of the economy, this issue is far down on the list of threats to the Republic.
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,532
Reaction score
95,367
Everytime we get a Constitutional comment from on high, I'm reminded how O was so highly regarded by the left as being a "Constitutional Scholar". Like the Nobel prize, the luster has worn thin on what it takes to be considered a expert.

If pigs could fly.......:rolleyes:

Yeah that was one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Scholar my ass. That fucking pos learned just enough to attack it. The lemmings are so fucking brain dead they swing from his balls like he’s some sort of second coming. The other baffling statement is about what a great “orator” he is....which to me is just a real head scratcher. That POS can’t string 2 sentences together using his own brain. I’ve heard WAY better speakers at my grandsons Jr high debate forums.

But when you consider Ofuckfaces audience it’s no surprise.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,978
The citizenship part of the 14th amendment has been addressed in Afroyim v. Rusk, Ark v. US, Perkins v. Elg, Elk v. Watkins, Plyer v. Doe and indirectly addressed in multiple others.

I don't give a shit either way. Sign the EO or have the Republican Majority file an Amendment to the Constitution.

With over 20 trillion in debt and a federal government now growing twice the rate of the rest of the economy, this issue is far down on the list of threats to the Republic.
Don't leave out Oracle vs P&G
 

ElAzul

Well-Known RDP Inmate #211
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
4,891
Reaction score
12,656
And suddenly the 2nd amendment is way less of a concern to the dims...yes dims hahahahahahaha. It would be epic if Obama got deported. It's a pipe dream but as the great MLK said "I have a dreammmmm" hahahahahaha. Hey dims look over here!!!!!! Is the words of Grads "sheep all of you" or something like that
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
51,532
Reaction score
95,367
The citizenship part of the 14th amendment has been addressed in Afroyim v. Rusk, Ark v. US, Perkins v. Elg, Elk v. Watkins, Plyer v. Doe and indirectly addressed in multiple others.

I don't give a shit either way. Sign the EO or have the Republican Majority file an Amendment to the Constitution.

With over 20 trillion in debt and a federal government now growing twice the rate of the rest of the economy, this issue is far down on the list of threats to the Republic.

And yet here you are.
 

RodnJen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
10,643
Reaction score
6,044
This aint so cut and dry as the wording is interpreted from the 14 in today's common definitions of the language. If attempted i have no doubt this will go all the way to the Supreme Court, it will be in their hands to decide what the amendment really means, we can all argue till we are blue in the face one way or the other.

Kinda like the Second Amendment? :D
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,309
Reaction score
45,377
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

"The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born."
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,309
Reaction score
45,377
Kinda like the Second Amendment? :D

Yes that would be correct, the definitions of well regulated and militia are different in our common language today, than they were in their common definition during the time of the writing of the bill rights, this fact is what has secured gun rights moreso than erode them.

This is the crux of the originalist vs non-originalist (activist or whatever other term may be applied) interpretation of the constitution.
 
Last edited:

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
21,182
Reaction score
20,154
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

"The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born."

Although born in the territorial US, he was born of a sovereign tribe not under US jurisdiction. The decision was made moot with subsequent Indian Acts.

"Of course, we cannot declare the wild Indians who do not recognize the government of the United States, who are not subject to our laws, with whom we make treaties, who have their own laws, who have their own regulations, whom we do not intend to interfere with or punish for the commission of crimes one upon the other, to be the subjects of the United States in the sense of being citizens."

The US repealed the 18th amendment with the 21st amendment. Repealing the entirety of the 14th amendment with Trump's expanded majorities after the election would certainly help Trump and his supporters mold America more consistent with their views and avoid the risk of a Supreme Court kerfuffle.
 

Sandlord

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
10,124
Reaction score
24,302
Boom, how to bypass the legislature 101. 5D chess motherfuckers
 

Racey

Maxwell Smart-Ass
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
21,309
Reaction score
45,377
Although born in the territorial US, he was born of a sovereign tribe not under US jurisdiction. The decision was made moot with subsequent Indian Acts.

"Of course, we cannot declare the wild Indians who do not recognize the government of the United States, who are not subject to our laws, with whom we make treaties, who have their own laws, who have their own regulations, whom we do not intend to interfere with or punish for the commission of crimes one upon the other, to be the subjects of the United States in the sense of being citizens."

The US repealed the 18th amendment with the 21st amendment. Repealing the entirety of the 14th amendment with Trump's expanded majorities after the election would certainly help Trump and his supporters mold America more consistent with their views and avoid the risk of a Supreme Court kerfuffle.

Bottom line, it's not just a cut and dry issue. Like i said initially, if this does get enacted in anyway it will go to the supreme court to have the ultimate say so.
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
2,796
And that’s how it’s done...

Get people talking about one tenth of one percent of the babies born annually ( Or one out of every 100,000 people) as if it’s worth mounting a grand constitutional challenge. Trump doesn’t give a crap about anchor babies... He needs the issue to keep the feeble minded voting Republican.
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,149
Reaction score
124,223
And that’s how it’s done...

Get people talking about one tenth of one percent of the babies born annually ( Or one out of every 100,000 people) as if it’s worth mounting a grand constitutional challenge. Trump doesn’t give a crap about anchor babies... He needs the issue to keep the feeble minded voting Republican.

Feeble minded as opposed to sound minded?

fba55d5d73d55faaf978bd5742235513.jpg


BTW, how's your Socialist Utopia Venezuela these days? hahahahahaha
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,900
Reaction score
2,796
Put this in the same pile of propaganda that sending troops to the border to fight the invasion is on...

Let’s see, let’s send 5000 military personnel to a border staffed by 16,000 border patrol agents to stop 3500 people who are 5 weeks away on foot.

Come on, even some of you guys are smart enough to see this is some way the dog shit being pulled.
 

regor

Tormenting libturds
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
40,149
Reaction score
124,223
Put this in the same pile of propaganda that sending troops to the border to fight the invasion is on...

Let’s see, let’s send 5000 military personnel to a border staffed by 16,000 border patrol agents to stop 3500 people who are 5 weeks away on foot.

Come on, even some of you guys are smart enough to see this is some way the dog shit being pulled.

Um, maybe you missed my last post?


On foot.................hahahahaha

BTW, is this the sound mind you so desire for your buttercups?

princeton11.jpg


BOO!!!!
 

LargeOrangeFont

We aren't happy until you aren't happy
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
49,690
Reaction score
76,151
And that’s how it’s done...

Get people talking about one tenth of one percent of the babies born annually ( Or one out of every 100,000 people) as if it’s worth mounting a grand constitutional challenge. Trump doesn’t give a crap about anchor babies... He needs the issue to keep the feeble minded voting Republican.

And it will keep the feeble minded voting blindly democrat...

Can we apply this same logic to the 2A debate? Because the grand total of gun deaths attributed to suicide, crime or accident is about 10% of this minuscule amount of babies born every year.

Thanks, gun control problem gone!
 
Top