Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Mischland]

If an illegal invades our borders the responsibility of punishment should rest on their own government, lest that government be accused of abiding an invading force of their making due to negligence of law and order

invasion
noun [ C or U ] UK ​ /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/ US ​ /ɪnˈveɪ.ʒən/
​
an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country:

They were planning to mount an invasion of the north of the country.

So yeah, not sure how immigration is an invasion.

I was making a hypothetical, not talking about the current situation.

[Neutraligon]

So yeah, not sure how immigration is an invasion.

I was making a hypothetical, not talking about the current situation.

That does not answer the comment. Also we are talking about the current situation, which is the president saying that he can nullify the 14th using an executive order. I believe by the way there are two exceptions to the born in US clause, one being diplomats and the other being the children of an occupying force.

[Trumptonium1]

33 states have entirely Republican legislatures. A further 4 (Maine, Washington, 2 others I can't remember) are inches off Republican control. A further two - Colorado and New York - are controlled by Republicans in one of the two legislative chambers. That's 38 for you.

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office,

And ending birthright citizenship is the best way to do just that.

It's extremely popular. Everybody likes it.

[Mischland]

If an illegal invades our borders the responsibility of punishment should rest on their own government, lest that government be accused of abiding an invading force of their making due to negligence of law and order

Except one very nice thing, there is no reason for the government of that country to punish those people.

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

[Vassenor]

Except one very nice thing, there is no reason for the government of that country to punish those people.

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

And what violent invasion would that be?

[Neutraligon]

Except one very nice thing, there is no reason for the government of that country to punish those people.

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

What violent invasion? Seems to me if a country is violently invading the US they already don't have good relations with the US.

[Frievolk]

Except one very nice thing, there is no reason for the government of that country to punish those people.

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

I don't think you know the meaning of violence or invasion, really.

[Page]

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office, and turning America into an apartheid state is the fastest way for them to be crushed in the next election.

It sounds like the US and Canada are the only developed nations that are non-apartheid states.

There's a huge difference between not having a right in the first place and revoking one. For example, some countries not having marriage equality is the result of the fact that such a thing wasn't considered for most of history and there hasn't yet been legislation to remedy this deficit of equal rights, but if a country that previously had same sex marriage then revoked it, that would be an act of state sponsored homophobia.

And I suspect that many who subscribe to the ideology of Trumpism have higher ambition than Apartheid era South Africa - what Donald himself is aiming for probably resembles what the government of Myanmar is doing to the Rohingya.

[Ifreann]

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office,

And ending birthright citizenship is the best way to do just that.

It's extremely popular. Everybody likes it.

No they don't.

[Vassenor]

In factoring in how many states are controlled by Republicans, you forgot something important: Republicans in office want to STAY in office,

And ending birthright citizenship is the best way to do just that.

It's extremely popular. Everybody likes it.

Let's see the data for that popularity claim then.

[Page]

Except one very nice thing, there is no reason for the government of that country to punish those people.

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

"Violent invasion." Do you have any justification for using such a phrase to describe the situation at hand?

[Mischland]

I was making a hypothetical, not talking about the current situation.

That does not answer the comment. Also we are talking about the current situation, which is the president saying that he can nullify the 14th using an executive order. I believe by the way there are two exceptions to the born in US clause, one being diplomats and the other being the children of an occupying force.

Yes it does. If in a hypothetical world, where Mexico is responsible for the prosecution of crimes committed by
their citizens in America, refusal by the Mexican government to punish such acts against our citizens could be legitimate reason to see the Mexico as abiding, or at least condoning, an invading force.

[Neutraligon]

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

"Violent invasion." Do you have any justification for using such a phrase to describe the situation at hand?

I find the idea that a country that is violently invading the US wants to maintain good ties with the US hilarious.

[Vassenor]

That does not answer the comment. Also we are talking about the current situation, which is the president saying that he can nullify the 14th using an executive order. I believe by the way there are two exceptions to the born in US clause, one being diplomats and the other being the children of an occupying force.

Yes it does. If in a hypothetical world, where Mexico is responsible for the prosecution of crimes committed by
their citizens in America, refusal by the Mexican government to punish such acts against our citizens could be legitimate reason to see the Mexico as abiding, or at least condoning, an invading force.

You still haven't explained how this constitutes an invasion though.

[Page]

It's extremely popular. Everybody likes it.

Source?

[Mischland]

If they want to maintain good ties with that country, they have a lot of good reasons to not seem complicit in a violent invasion

"Violent invasion." Do you have any justification for using such a phrase to describe the situation at hand?

No. Please re-read my recent posts.

[Neutraligon]

That does not answer the comment. Also we are talking about the current situation, which is the president saying that he can nullify the 14th using an executive order. I believe by the way there are two exceptions to the born in US clause, one being diplomats and the other being the children of an occupying force.

Yes it does. If in a hypothetical world, where Mexico is responsible for the prosecution of crimes committed by
their citizens in America, refusal by the Mexican government to punish such acts against our citizens could be legitimate reason to see the Mexico as abiding, or at least condoning, an invading force.

Except for 1 very nice thing, you said that Mexico was violently invading the US. SO if that is the case, why would they wish to maintain good relations with the US. THey are already invading.

Edit: I should stop this is a threadjack.

[Vassenor]

"Violent invasion." Do you have any justification for using such a phrase to describe the situation at hand?

No. Please re-read my recent posts.

So you're admitting you're just using the term for emotive value even though it doesn't apply?

[Page]

That does not answer the comment. Also we are talking about the current situation, which is the president saying that he can nullify the 14th using an executive order. I believe by the way there are two exceptions to the born in US clause, one being diplomats and the other being the children of an occupying force.

Yes it does. If in a hypothetical world, where Mexico is responsible for the prosecution of crimes committed by
their citizens in America, refusal by the Mexican government to punish such acts against our citizens could be legitimate reason to see the Mexico as abiding, or at least condoning, an invading force.

Is it a crime in Mexico to attempt to migrate?

There are some countries where it is a crime to attempt to leave: North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. But most of the civilized world doesn't treat its own citizens like prisoners.

[Mischland]

Yes it does. If in a hypothetical world, where Mexico is responsible for the prosecution of crimes committed by
their citizens in America, refusal by the Mexican government to punish such acts against our citizens could be legitimate reason to see the Mexico as abiding, or at least condoning, an invading force.

You still haven't explained how this constitutes an invasion though.

Invasion: an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, especially by an army.

The subject at hand is of a hypothetical amount of illegal aliens who commit violent acts and aren't prosecuted by their government when they're expected to be. Since said government is abiding such criminality through negligence they might be accused of being implicitly aligned with such criminals.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment. They wanted to give non-citizen slaves rights, and citizenship. Which is ofcourse a great thing to strive for, however for those who decide to cross the border and have a kid, they use this as a legal loophole to stay in America, or we’d separate them from their kid.

If you want to have a serious debate, maybe you should stop using slurs like "anchor babies."

And just to be perfectly clear, because I know you will want to twist my words, I am not saying you don't have the right to use this term as part of freedom of speech, I don't think governments should jail or fine or otherwise punish people who use slurs. What I am doing is calling you out for it. Such language is dehumanizing. Babies born on US soil are AMERICAN CITIZENS.

I hardly consider “anchor baby” as a slur. It is hardly offensive, it merely describes that the person was born outside the us soil, and was used to keep their parents in the USA. Is the person who says the name, “anchor baby” being more dehumanizing, than what illegal immigrants use their children for, to stay in the USA under a legal loophole?

I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment.

They were aware of that issue and didn't seem to care.

Do you have a source describing the drafters viewpoint?

Its a small problem of a much bigger one. Immigration is a big deal to the us, and the anchor baby discussion is a battlefield. It’s fallacious to say that it isn’t important.


Calling people like me, racist, because you have nothing to contribute to the conversation? Spare me your rather weak insults


I hardly think, that the drafters thought of anchor babies when they wrote the amendment. They wanted to give non-citizen slaves rights, and citizenship. Which is ofcourse a great thing to strive for, however for those who decide to cross the border and have a kid, they use this as a legal loophole to stay in America, or we’d separate them from their kid.

Then why has the 14th Amendment only come under scrutiny now? The US has had periods of far great immigrant influx since the adoption of the 14th Amendment. The drafters might not have thought of 'anchor babies', but there is a lot they did not foresee. However, they did foresee immigrants coming to the United States, and having children. As we can see from the drafting history, neatly pointed out by Fox News of all sources:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-i ... tional.amp

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The drafters had a perfect opportunity to weave language about subjects to foreign power into their amendment. They purposefully changed the language of the 1866 Act to exclude references to foreign powers. From that, we can only interpret that the drafters thought about it, and that they went with the current wording regardless.

Are you seriously implying that they would’ve been ok with anchor babies? These are people who would be farther conservative, than the conservatives today. I think its more than likely it was just used to make paperwork simpler, and beraucracy faster.

[Mischland]

Yes it does. If in a hypothetical world, where Mexico is responsible for the prosecution of crimes committed by
their citizens in America, refusal by the Mexican government to punish such acts against our citizens could be legitimate reason to see the Mexico as abiding, or at least condoning, an invading force.

Is it a crime in Mexico to attempt to migrate?

There are some countries where it is a crime to attempt to leave: North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. But most of the civilized world doesn't treat its own citizens like prisoners.

Please re read my recent posts until you get the point

[Neutraligon]

Is it a crime in Mexico to attempt to migrate?

There are some countries where it is a crime to attempt to leave: North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela. But most of the civilized world doesn't treat its own citizens like prisoners.

Please re read my recent posts until you get the point

Your posts are a threadjack.

[Page]

I hardly consider “anchor baby” as a slur. It is hardly offensive, it merely describes that the person was born outside the us soil, and was used to keep their parents in the USA. Is the person who says the name, “anchor baby” being more dehumanizing, than what illegal immigrants use their children for, to stay in the USA under a legal loophole?

You are using a deragatory term to describe American citizens, with the implication that they aren't really Americans because of their parents' nationality.

And how many people can you prove came to America to give birth specifically for this reason? Do you have evidence of intent?

[Mischland]

No. Please re-read my recent posts.

So you're admitting you're just using the term for emotive value even though it doesn't apply?

No. I was describing a hypothetical situation to illustrate what might happen when crimes committed by illegal aliens are prosecuted by the governments that they belong to instead of the government where they committed the crimes. It had nothing to do with the migrant caravan and is only distantly connected to the subject of the 14th amendment. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore.