Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by dachsie, Oct 30, 2018.
Lpts. The French foreign legion is the best example.
Trump is using this as a campaign issue to drive turnout for his party and nothing more. He believes that immigration is the most important wedge issue that he has to drive to turnout. The fact that anyone actually believes he can do this isn't very versed in American History or our constitution. First, in order to change the 14th amendment would require that 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate vote in favor of an amendment to kill the 14th amendment. Then the legislation would actually go the National Archives who would send the amendment out to the states where it would require that 3/4 of the State legislatures would ratify it. The only other way is for 2/3 of State Legislatures call for a constitutional convention to make the amendment and then, after writing the amendment, 3/4 of the State Legislatures would still have to vote to ratify it. Long story short....it ain't happening. Trump can issue an Executive Order and let it go all the way to the SC but the SC can't do a damn thing about it. The only way to change an amendment to the constitution is with another amendment to the constitution and given the parameters for doing so, it isn't happening because there simply isn't enough votes to make any of the aforementioned scenarios happen.
Really? In 1973 the Supreme Court somehow found, in that same 14th Amendment, the right for women to kill their unborn babies. You think its inconceivable that the court can't determine citizenship doesn't apply to the children of people who invade our borders without another Amendment?
That’s because a justice invented “the right to “privacy” out of whole cloth. Conservative justices who have sworn to uphold the literal interpretation of the constitution wouldn’t do that would they?
LOL....Roe v Wade didn't change the 14th Amendment. Roe v Wade was decided based upon the 14th Amendment, particularly Section 1. Further, lots of important cases in our history have been decided based upon the 14th amendment: Brown v Board of Education, Bush v Gore and, more recently, the case that decided same sex marriage. That said, none of these changed the 14th Amendment. So here is the text of the 14th, Section 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.
This is important because this is what currently protects birthright citizenship. In order to change that you have to change the 14th amendment to the constitution with another constitutional amendment that negates the 14th. I think, with the Roe v Wade thing, you mistook case law, which is decided based upon the constitution but does not make changes to the constitution.
Most of the rational arguments that are out there now are NOT about changing the "text", rather a different interpretation of key meanings.
Its all over the place though.
In any-case, this is a tactic. Immigration IS a big issue to a great deal of people. Most importantly, we support immigration, but want a more legal structure around it.
There is no doubt that we are ever increasing our social programs, which if ANY of you Dem's support, you MUST support for greater controls on legal entry into this country.
Without this, there is ZERO sustainable way to pay for all this shit.
With automation and AI just around the corner, now is the time to get this done.
That means if a French woman delivers a baby while vacationing in Disney World, the baby is an American citizen. Of course, WDW didn't exist when 14A was written, so that's no argument. Actually, its the same argument the gun control crowd makes about automatic weapons and 2A. Why not just let SCOTUS interpret if the 14A was intended to protect illegal aliens?
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Then why do we deport illegals?
I think the answer is clear.
To be the devil’s advocate (you know how I feel about Trump) but could he do something (on his own or with Congress) about illegal parents exempting them from some laws, so the last part, “jurisdiction thereof,” could be sidestepped? Might be easy than amending the Amendment.
Should be so simple, if you visiting the country on some sort of temporary (work, student, vacation) visa and you have your baby then its a citizen of wherever you came from. If you are immigrating here legally and if you have a kid in the process that kid becomes a citizen when you do, piggy back citizenship. If you don't finish the process, then when your visa is up you either renew it or leave.
Everything else with immigration should be left alone, just fix this one little issue and I think a bunch of people would enjoy that something actually got done.
Then we can start talking about what to do with the people who are here illegally, the real issue.