Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Kekistonia]

Get rid of them both. All illegal aliens must go. It is the law.

The President has authority to grant both pardons as well as clemency and repreive from federal crimes under Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the US Constitution. Given that immigration is subject to federal law, and those that break it are breaking a federal law, it is entirely within the President's power to provide reprieve and clemency to people who break said law. The President has all the authority in the world to grant clemency to specific groups of people.

Does that apply to foreign nationals?

[Seangoli]

Correct it is a policy in which agents focus their attention on those who are committing criminal acts. You have yet to say how this is unconstitutional.

It is an overreach of executive power that effectively exempts people on American soil from American law.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

Read it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The President has authority to grant both pardons as well as clemency and repreive from federal crimes under Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the US Constitution. Given that immigration is subject to federal law, and those that break it are breaking a federal law, it is entirely within the President's power to provide reprieve and clemency to people who break said law. The President has all the authority in the world to grant clemency to specific groups of people.

Does that apply to foreign nationals?

In this case, yes

[Kekistonia]

Does that apply to foreign nationals?

In this case, yes

So it only does when you say it does?

[Vassenor]

The President has authority to grant both pardons as well as clemency and repreive from federal crimes under Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the US Constitution. Given that immigration is subject to federal law, and those that break it are breaking a federal law, it is entirely within the President's power to provide reprieve and clemency to people who break said law. The President has all the authority in the world to grant clemency to specific groups of people.

Does that apply to foreign nationals?

The Constitution doesn't say it doesn't apply. Just says "crimes against the United States".

[Zanera]

Children who were born by illegal immigrants are still here illegally due to both parents not being legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. I fully support Trump's decision on this. I can sense the outpouring of fuming rage from liberals already.

The 'lol it makes my political opponent mad' comes off as tired and frankly childish when uttered from anyone.

[Seangoli]

The President has authority to grant both pardons as well as clemency and repreive from federal crimes under Article II, Section 2, clause 1 of the US Constitution. Given that immigration is subject to federal law, and those that break it are breaking a federal law, it is entirely within the President's power to provide reprieve and clemency to people who break said law. The President has all the authority in the world to grant clemency to specific groups of people.

Does that apply to foreign nationals?

First, those under US jurisdiction are afforded the rights in the Constitution. The US Consitution is a limit on the power of the Government first and foremost, and as such everyone in US jurisdiction is afforded them.

Second, I see no reason why the President's power to grant Clemency to those who break immigration law wouldn't count, as there is nothing at all indicating that his power is limited only to granting clemency *only* to US citizens breaking federal law. The only stipulation in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 is that the person must commit an offense against the United States.

Now if you can show me where it says this clause only applies to US citizens, that would be great. Otherwise, you are clearly injecting your personal opinion of what you want the US Constitution to say, and not what it actually says.

[Vassenor]

Children who were born by illegal immigrants are still here illegally due to both parents not being legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. I fully support Trump's decision on this. I can sense the outpouring of fuming rage from liberals already.

The 'lol it makes my political opponent mad' comes off as tired and frankly childish when uttered from anyone.

But it's pretty much what this government is built on.

[Seangoli]

In this case, yes

So it only does when you say it does?

The Constitution applies to everyone under US jurisdiction.

[Internationalist Bastard]

In this case, yes

So it only does when you say it does?

No, it applies when the only crime commited in America was specifically living in America in a certain way. Doesn't mean the President could say, pardon a criminal in Australia

[Vassenor]

People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

Territorial waters count, as do US-flagged aircraft anywhere IIRC.

Attaching a rider to what I said here: While Article 17 of the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation states that aircraft are considered the territory of the nation where they are registered, there isn't really a precedent on how that affects birthright citizenship and such.

[Colbert Super PAC]

Children who were born by illegal immigrants are still here illegally due to both parents not being legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. I fully support Trump's decision on this. I can sense the outpouring of fuming rage from liberals already.

The 'lol it makes my political opponent mad' comes off as tired and frankly childish when uttered from anyone.

But for what other reason could be possibly make new laws? Because they're good for the nation as a whole? Come now, that's just silly.

[Kekistonia]

Does that apply to foreign nationals?

First, those under US jurisdiction are afforded the rights in the Constitution. The US Consitution is a limit on the power of the Government first and foremost, and as such everyone in US jurisdiction is afforded them.

Second, I see no reason why the President's power to grant Clemency to those who break immigration law wouldn't count, as there is nothing at all indicating that his power is limited only to granting clemency *only* to US citizens breaking federal law. The only stipulation in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 is that the person must commit an offense against the United States.

Now if you can show me where it says this clause only applies to US citizens, that would be great. Otherwise, you are clearly injecting your personal opinion of what you want the US Constitution to say, and not what it actually says.

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that Dreamers are here illegaly and have to go.

[Neutraligon]

First, those under US jurisdiction are afforded the rights in the Constitution. The US Consitution is a limit on the power of the Government first and foremost, and as such everyone in US jurisdiction is afforded them.

Second, I see no reason why the President's power to grant Clemency to those who break immigration law wouldn't count, as there is nothing at all indicating that his power is limited only to granting clemency *only* to US citizens breaking federal law. The only stipulation in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 is that the person must commit an offense against the United States.

Now if you can show me where it says this clause only applies to US citizens, that would be great. Otherwise, you are clearly injecting your personal opinion of what you want the US Constitution to say, and not what it actually says.

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that Dreamers are here illegaly and have to go.

No one is arguing they are here illegally. People are arguing whether they have to go. They are also arguing that if the only law that they have broken is entering the us illegally (and often through no choice of their own), then there are better people to spend resources on, like those who are committing criminal rather then civil crimes.

[Internationalist Bastard]

First, those under US jurisdiction are afforded the rights in the Constitution. The US Consitution is a limit on the power of the Government first and foremost, and as such everyone in US jurisdiction is afforded them.

Second, I see no reason why the President's power to grant Clemency to those who break immigration law wouldn't count, as there is nothing at all indicating that his power is limited only to granting clemency *only* to US citizens breaking federal law. The only stipulation in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 is that the person must commit an offense against the United States.

Now if you can show me where it says this clause only applies to US citizens, that would be great. Otherwise, you are clearly injecting your personal opinion of what you want the US Constitution to say, and not what it actually says.

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that Dreamers are here illegaly and have to go.

But it's not their fault. They were born criminals and given no chance to change that

[Neutraligon]

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that Dreamers are here illegaly and have to go.

But it's not their fault. They were born criminals and given no chance to change that

Actually technically they are not criminals. A criminal is someone who has violated criminal law. Entering the US illegally, or remaining in the US after the VISA has expired is civil.

[Vassenor]

First, those under US jurisdiction are afforded the rights in the Constitution. The US Consitution is a limit on the power of the Government first and foremost, and as such everyone in US jurisdiction is afforded them.

Second, I see no reason why the President's power to grant Clemency to those who break immigration law wouldn't count, as there is nothing at all indicating that his power is limited only to granting clemency *only* to US citizens breaking federal law. The only stipulation in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 is that the person must commit an offense against the United States.

Now if you can show me where it says this clause only applies to US citizens, that would be great. Otherwise, you are clearly injecting your personal opinion of what you want the US Constitution to say, and not what it actually says.

Fair enough. Doesn't change the fact that Dreamers are here illegaly and have to go.

So what harm are they causing?

[Ism]

It is unbelievable that people here are actually arguing against enforcing the law. This is undefendable.

Really? I would say it is indefensible to equate legality with morality. They should not be thought of as the same, and morality should always trump legality.

[Staniel]

Children who were born by illegal immigrants are still here illegally due to both parents not being legal, naturalized U.S. citizens. I fully support Trump's decision on this. I can sense the outpouring of fuming rage from liberals already.

People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

I think you missed the part where I said "born by ILLEGAL immigrants". You can't get instant free amnesty like that. The Constitution does not protect illegal aliens whether they're born in the U.S. or not. AGAIN. IL. LEGALS. What about those aliens who want to pay for a visa and be a naturalized citizen? How is that fair for them? "Dreamers" can't have their cake and eat it too.

[Seangoli]

But it's not their fault. They were born criminals and given no chance to change that

Actually technically they are not criminals. A criminal is someone who has violated criminal law. Entering the US illegally, or remaining in the US after the VISA has expired is civil.

Entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor offense, which means it is a criminal act. Just being here illegally, however, is a civil offense.

[Gauthier]

The 'lol it makes my political opponent mad' comes off as tired and frankly childish when uttered from anyone.

But it's pretty much what this government is built on.

The current government is like that one Star Trek monster but it needs liberal salt to survive.

[Internationalist Bastard]

But it's not their fault. They were born criminals and given no chance to change that

Actually technically they are not criminals. A criminal is someone who has violated criminal law. Entering the US illegally, or remaining in the US after the VISA has expired is civil.

I know, I just don't know how else to refer to them then "people who are punished for a legal technicality"

[Seangoli]

People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

I think you missed the part where I said "born by ILLEGAL immigrants". You can't get instant free amnesty like that. The Constitution does not protect illegal aliens whether they're born in the U.S. or not. AGAIN. IL. LEGALS. What about those aliens who want to pay for a visa and be a naturalized citizen? How is that fair for them? "Dreamers" can't have their cake and eat it too.

If you are born in the US, regardless of the status of your parents, you are a US citizen by law. 14th amendment all that jazz. Don't like it? Amend the constitution. Otherwise you are actively calling for violating the Constitution because you don't like the Constitution.

[Ism]

People born within US jurisdiction are US citizens, but if they were born elsewhere, they aren't.
I'm not 100% sure how US waters work with this.

I think you missed the part where I said "born by ILLEGAL immigrants". You can't get instant free amnesty like that. The Constitution does not protect illegal aliens whether they're born in the U.S. or not. AGAIN. IL. LEGALS. What about those aliens who want to pay for a visa and be a naturalized citizen? How is that fair for them? "Dreamers" can't have their cake and eat it too.

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen, regardless of their parentage. Even if both parents are illegal immigrants, the child is still a citizen if born on US soil.

[Kekistonia]

It is unbelievable that people here are actually arguing against enforcing the law. This is undefendable.

Really? I would say it is indefensible to equate legality with morality. They should not be thought of as the same, and morality should always trump legality.

No. The law is the law, nobody is above it. Morality is subjective, the law is much, much less so.