Birthright Citizenship

[5GallonBucket]

2 hours ago, little red said:

He is so full of it

As well as you

[Reagan]

14 hours ago, little red said:

Yeah!!!!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Since you apparently think this decision was good for all Americans let me ask you this:  

The US Constitution was ratified on June 27, 1788.  The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868.  That's an 80 year difference.  Tell me -- if it was so important to all Americans then why wasn't the 14th language in the original Constitution?  

[little red]

6 hours ago, Reagan said:

Since you apparently think this decision was good for all Americans let me ask you this:  

The US Constitution was ratified on June 27, 1788.  The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868.  That's an 80 year difference.  Tell me -- if it was so important to all Americans then why wasn't the 14th language in the original Constitution?  

Because people didn't know what to do with slaves after they were freed. 80 years before, the enslaved were not free.

[OlDawg]

17 hours ago, UT alum said:

The law is the law, unintended consequences and all.  

What happened to your "The Constitution is a living document, and changes with the times" argument? (That was one of the funniest things to me. Liberal/Progressives--who typically argue the Constitution is a living document--wanted to maintain an originalist stance, and vice versa for the originalist/textualists. The typical stances were almost flipped.)

This was never going to fly as an EO, and it shouldn't be handled in that manner. Too important a question, and it should require a high bar to change. The arguments were fascinating. I think they opened a lot of people's eyes to issues they hadn't thought about.

I don't agree with the interpretation. But, the--basically 5 to 4--decision shows it was a question that needed to be addressed. The Administration made a mistake in trying to push it through an EO. If they'd passed something through Congress, it may have been a different outcome.

By going the EO route, they basically sealed the outcome from the start. Now, the SCOTUS ruling has made it all but impossible to change.

Immigration, Visa, and entry laws can be addressed, but, they--and the enforcement--will change with Admins. It will be a similar issue to if it was addressed via an EO. The Administration DID receive a win for immigration control by being able to deny entry asylum unless on our soil. But, it will just mean illegal entry will try to pick up again. They also won on the issue of Temporary Protected Status actually being 'Temporary.'

Maybe there can be a way to limit certain benefits going to underage citizens of illegal immigrants/students/temporary visitors that wouldn't rely on the citizenship question of the minor, since that's a major way illegal immigrants are receiving benefits they aren't due, and is the main draw for illegal immigration.

[OlDawg]

Incidentally, this is the second very major decision Roberts has been a disappointment on IMHO. First, he twisted like a contortionist to make sure Obamacare was considered legal, and allowed to be implemented. Now, he fails to see the functional flaws in this decision.

Two decisions that have the greatest impact on every single person on U.S. soil or territory--legal, transient, illegal or not--he has shown himself to be anything BUT a conservative. They are probably the two biggest decisions from the SCOTUS during his tenure. The only one comparable would be Roe v Wade overturned.

[thetragichippy]

21 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Incidentally, this is the second very major decision Roberts has been a disappointment on IMHO. First, he twisted like a contortionist to make sure Obamacare was considered legal, and allowed to be implemented. Now, he fails to see the functional flaws in this decision.

Two decisions that have the greatest impact on every single person on U.S. soil or territory--legal, transient, illegal or not--he has shown himself to be anything BUT a conservative. They are probably the two biggest decisions from the SCOTUS during his tenure. The only one comparable would be Roe v Wade overturned.

100% - my guess is he retires under a Democrat President

[OlDawg]

13 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

100% - my guess is he retires under a Democrat President

Wouldn’t find me betting against you.

[Reagan]

4 hours ago, little red said:

Because people didn't know what to do with slaves after they were freed. 80 years before, the enslaved were not free.

OK, help me out here.  You applauded tis decision.  But you apparently understand that it was strictly for the slaves.  How is this relevant now?  The problem for America is the unintended consequences that has happened and will continue to happen.  These are not good for America.  So, explain why you think bad unintended consequences for America is good!

[thetragichippy]

1 hour ago, Reagan said:

OK, help me out here.  You applauded tis decision.  But you apparently understand that it was strictly for the slaves.  How is this relevant now?  The problem for America is the unintended consequences that has happened and will continue to happen.  These are not good for America.  So, explain why you think bad unintended consequences for America is good!

I can break it down in one acronym  "TDS".

It was a 5/4 decision and one of those in the majority cannot define what a woman is. 

There is no telling how many terrorist will come back as an adult and us citizen and get away with an attack.  

[SmashMouth]

20 hours ago, UT alum said:

The law is the law, unintended consequences and all.  

It's hard to disagree with that statement. There are two things you can do: Live with it or change it. The votes aren't there to change it, so....

[SmashMouth]

5 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

It was a 5/4 decision

It was 6/3, I'm pretty sure.

While I don't really like the outcome, I believe it was the correct ruling based on Constitutional law.

[OlDawg]

28 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

It was 6/3, I'm pretty sure.

While I don't really like the outcome, I believe it was the correct ruling based on Constitutional law.

It was basically 5-4 on the Birthright Citizenship via the 14th. Kavanaugh said birthright citizenship didn't come from the 14th, but from a previous Law passed by Congress, and that made the EO illegal. So, he was in the minority opinion (4) along with Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas on that issue. He left an avenue in his split decision that would have allowed Congress to pass another Law defining citizenship without needing an Amendment because--in his view--the 14th didn't grant automatic birthright citizenship.

[OlDawg]

39 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I can break it down in one acronym  "TDS".

It was a 5/4 decision and one of those in the majority cannot define what a woman is. 

There is no telling how many terrorist will come back as an adult and us citizen and get away with an attack.  

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Manchurian Candidates.' Terrorists don't have to be citizens. Although, it could be argued that some members of our current government are already terrorists.

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, OlDawg said:

I was thinking more along the lines of 'Manchurian Candidates.' Terrorists don't have to be citizens. Although, it could be argued that some members of our current government are already terrorists.

 

 

[little red]

5 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

I can break it down in one acronym  "TDS".

It was a 5/4 decision and one of those in the majority cannot define what a woman is. 

There is no telling how many terrorist will come back as an adult and us citizen and get away with an attack.  

6/3

[Porter]

Lol

 

[UT alum]

21 hours ago, OlDawg said:

What happened to your "The Constitution is a living document, and changes with the times" argument? (That was one of the funniest things to me. Liberal/Progressives--who typically argue the Constitution is a living document--wanted to maintain an originalist stance, and vice versa for the originalist/textualists. The typical stances were almost flipped.)

This was never going to fly as an EO, and it shouldn't be handled in that manner. Too important a question, and it should require a high bar to change. The arguments were fascinating. I think they opened a lot of people's eyes to issues they hadn't thought about.

I don't agree with the interpretation. But, the--basically 5 to 4--decision shows it was a question that needed to be addressed. The Administration made a mistake in trying to push it through an EO. If they'd passed something through Congress, it may have been a different outcome.

By going the EO route, they basically sealed the outcome from the start. Now, the SCOTUS ruling has made it all but impossible to change.

Immigration, Visa, and entry laws can be addressed, but, they--and the enforcement--will change with Admins. It will be a similar issue to if it was addressed via an EO. The Administration DID receive a win for immigration control by being able to deny entry asylum unless on our soil. But, it will just mean illegal entry will try to pick up again. They also won on the issue of Temporary Protected Status actually being 'Temporary.'

Maybe there can be a way to limit certain benefits going to underage citizens of illegal immigrants/students/temporary visitors that wouldn't rely on the citizenship question of the minor, since that's a major way illegal immigrants are receiving benefits they aren't due, and is the main draw for illegal immigration.

It is and it does. Not with every decision. Over time. 

[thetragichippy]

13 hours ago, little red said:

6/3

5/4 on if the EO violates the 14th amendment citizen clause….

you still have not gave a reason for you applauding the decision.

[OlDawg]

27 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

5/4 on if the EO violates the 14th amendment citizen clause….

you still have not gave a reason for you applauding the decision.

Yes. People are too lazy to read the actual opinions. That’s part of our problems. They eat what the press opinions feed them.

The press wants to simplify, and the liberal press wants to make it seem like it was a slam dunk decision.

It was far from a slam dunk decision. It was—in essence—4/4/1, with the 1 going with the majority for different reasons than the EO being unconstitutional. Kavanaugh said straight up the EO didn’t violate the 14th. It violated a previous statute by Congress.

[little red]

56 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Yes. People are too lazy to read the actual opinions. That’s part of our problems. They eat what the press opinions feed them.

The press wants to simplify, and the liberal press wants to make it seem like it was a slam dunk decision.

It was far from a slam dunk decision. It was—in essence—4/4/1, with the 1 going with the majority for different reasons than the EO being unconstitutional. Kavanaugh said straight up the EO didn’t violate the 14th. It violated a previous statute by Congress.

I read that it was 6-3

[little red]

21 hours ago, Reagan said:

OK, help me out here.  You applauded tis decision.  But you apparently understand that it was strictly for the slaves.  How is this relevant now?  The problem for America is the unintended consequences that has happened and will continue to happen.  These are not good for America.  So, explain why you think bad unintended consequences for America is good!

The 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, establishes that all people born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. It guarantees birthright citizenship and mandates that states cannot strip citizens of their rights, requiring them to provide due process and equal protection under the law.

[thetragichippy]

52 minutes ago, little red said:

The 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, establishes that all people born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. It guarantees birthright citizenship and mandates that states cannot strip citizens of their rights, requiring them to provide due process and equal protection under the law.

One more time.....Why do you support and applaud it? 

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, little red said:

The 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War, establishes that all people born or naturalized in the U.S. are citizens. It guarantees birthright citizenship and mandates that states cannot strip citizens of their rights, requiring them to provide due process and equal protection under the law.

A bit of advise:  When you copy and paste you have to give credit to who you are copying and pasting.  Forum rules!

Now, addressing the opinion piece you are quoting.  One major part left out was:   Here is the exact wording:  "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."  The most important part was left out.  A woman from China runs to the US drops a bambino and then high tails it back to China is NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  

[baddog]

8 minutes ago, Reagan said:

A bit of advise:  When you copy and paste you have to give credit to who you are copying and pasting.  Forum rules!

Now, addressing the opinion piece you are quoting.  One major part left out was:   Here is the exact wording:  "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."  The most important part was left out.  A woman from China runs to the US drops a bambino and then high tails it back to China is NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  

Totally agree. I find it comical that liberal CB tries to quote the constitution to press his point. Most liberals I know spit on our constitution. Remember, the divider-in-chief, Obama, referred to our constitution as just a piece of parchment, an imperfect document, and a charter of negative liberties. Funny, he got filthy rich under that piece of parchment.