Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Shofercia]

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/14th-amendment-trump-plans-to-order-end-of-birthright-citizenship/4580659/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... e880bf8896

Well, it's finally here, people. The crown jewel of impossible campaign promises has arrived. The Donald, from what I can tell, wants to end the 14th amendment, but only through an executive order. We all know an amendment trying to nullify it wouldn't pass, so this is his only option. However, although I may not be a constitutional lawyer, even I know he can't do that. However, it seems like what he's trying to do is just exclude illegal immigrants from 14th amendment protection, and that seems to be pretty damn unconstitutional to me.

Thoughts, NSG?

Yes, it's a very unpopular policy, so what? The Constitution wasn't made to be popular. It was made to create a set of rules that the US can use to survive, and hopefully thrive. The Constitution defends the Electoral College and anchor babies, but it also gives us the Bill of Rights. How quickly did the PATRIOT act take away basic freedoms? If you start openly dumping on the Constitution, you will play a role in America becoming a third World country, and not just when it comes to Healthcare and randomly invading countries.

Those of you who want America's gun rights to be restricted to European gun laws, this is what you sound like to those of us who are Centrists. What was Trump thinking? This is just a dumb, dumb, dumb thing to do.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Like I said a threadjack. want to talk about this topic, make a new thread.

[Page]

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

I understand the whole perspective of how American exceptionalism makes one think that other countries are vassal states who must serve America's interests or be crushed, that's nothing new.

What justification do you have for Mexico controlling movement within its own borders? If the US is sovereign over its own soil, surely Mexico is sovereign over theirs, and surely it is the job of the US to control its borders rather than have Mexico do their job for them? You are essentially demanding Mexico control internal movement the same way North Korea does.

[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.

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.

Ok, once more: No, I said that if Mexico doesn't want to be accused of being complicit in an invading force, they will uphold their hypothetical, not-currently-existing duty to prosecute their own citizens when they commit crimes in our country.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Ok, once more: No, I said that if Mexico doesn't want to be accused of being complicit in an invading force, they will uphold their hypothetical, not-currently-existing duty to prosecute their own citizens when they commit crimes in our country.

Like I said, threadjack. Start a new thread if you want to talk about this hypothetical.
Anyway, back to the actual topic. We seem to have already determined who falls under the jurisdiction of the US in various Supreme Court rulings.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So I’ve decided that everyone who supports this should be mandated to legally go through the process of becoming a citizen
If they fail to make it through they’re deported

[Page]

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.

Ok, once more: No, I said that if Mexico doesn't want to be accused of being complicit in an invading force, they will uphold their hypothetical, not-currently-existing duty to prosecute their own citizens when they commit crimes in our country.

If an American citizen went to Canada, overstayed their visa, got caught by Canada and deported back to the US, do you think the US government should prosecute that person?

[Holy Tedalonia]

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?

They are only American citizens in name only, they are likely to be raised by foreign parents, raising them on foreign ideals. Americans should be raised on American ideals, it makes a more cohesive society, allowing less friction between sub-cultures. This is why we have a painfully long citizenship system, to ensure that people adopt American ideals. And their attempting to bypass that system.

Even if they don’t intend it originally, they eventually depend on the anchor baby method. Using it to not be deported. The fact is they use their children as reasons to stay in the USA, even when otherwise they would have been deported. This is a clear legal loophole.

[Page]

So I’ve decided that everyone who supports this should be mandated to legally go through the process of becoming a citizen
If they fail to make it through they’re deported

Not even the whole process, just the exam on US history and government. That alone will still result in more deportation than logistically possible.

[Internationalist Bastard]

So I’ve decided that everyone who supports this should be mandated to legally go through the process of becoming a citizen
If they fail to make it through they’re deported

Not even the whole process, just the exam on US history and government. That alone will still result in more deportation than logistically possible.

Very true

[Mischland]

Please re read my recent posts until you get the point

I understand the whole perspective of how American exceptionalism makes one think that other countries are vassal states who must serve America's interests or be crushed, that's nothing new.

What justification do you have for Mexico controlling movement within its own borders? If the US is sovereign over its own soil, surely Mexico is sovereign over theirs, and surely it is the job of the US to control its borders rather than have Mexico do their job for them? You are essentially demanding Mexico control internal movement the same way North Korea does.

I suggested that crimes committed by Mexican citizens should be prosecuted by the Mexican government regardless of where that crime occurs to avoid confusion over who has jurisdiction over illegal aliens. Mexicans aren't American citizens, they shouldn't be able to (or have to) reap the rewards (or drawbacks) of our justice systems when they commit crimes here. However, I think it is the sole responsibility of a nation to defend its own borders, however the bordering nation could certainly do so out of neighborliness.

[Neutraligon]

Not even the whole process, just the exam on US history and government. That alone will still result in more deportation than logistically possible.

Very true

I did that at Ellis Island. I am glad to say I passed the test.

[Frievolk]

I understand the whole perspective of how American exceptionalism makes one think that other countries are vassal states who must serve America's interests or be crushed, that's nothing new.

What justification do you have for Mexico controlling movement within its own borders? If the US is sovereign over its own soil, surely Mexico is sovereign over theirs, and surely it is the job of the US to control its borders rather than have Mexico do their job for them? You are essentially demanding Mexico control internal movement the same way North Korea does.

I suggested that crimes committed by Mexican citizens should be prosecuted by the Mexican government regardless of where that crime occurs to avoid confusion over who has jurisdiction over illegal aliens. Mexicans aren't American citizens, they shouldn't be able to (or have to) reap the rewards (or drawbacks) of our justice systems when they commit crimes here. However, I think it is the sole responsibility of a nation to defend its own borders, however the bordering nation could certainly do so out of neighborliness.

I'm not sure you understand the point of judicial sovereignty here. That could start so many diplomatic crises I can't even start thinking about which one's the worst. Oh wait, there was one such situation where I live, and it ended with mass protest and eventually a revolution.

[Page]

They are only American citizens in name only, they are likely to be raised by foreign parents, raising them on foreign ideals. Americans should be raised on American ideals, it makes a more cohesive society, allowing less friction between sub-cultures. This is why we have a painfully long citizenship system, to ensure that people adopt American ideals. And their attempting to bypass that system.

Even if they don’t intend it originally, they eventually depend on the anchor baby method. Using it to not be deported. The fact is they use their children as reasons to stay in the USA, even when otherwise they would have been deported. This is a clear legal loophole.

If only people were as concerned about legal loopholes when it comes to corporations zero income tax and the American military using white phosphorous as a chemical weapon.

That's quite a generalization you're making too. You realize that these kids end up going to public schools, right? They tend to meet Americans and adapt to the culture. One gets culture from how they're raised, not from their ethnic background.

[Seangoli]

I understand the whole perspective of how American exceptionalism makes one think that other countries are vassal states who must serve America's interests or be crushed, that's nothing new.

What justification do you have for Mexico controlling movement within its own borders? If the US is sovereign over its own soil, surely Mexico is sovereign over theirs, and surely it is the job of the US to control its borders rather than have Mexico do their job for them? You are essentially demanding Mexico control internal movement the same way North Korea does.

I suggested that crimes committed by Mexican citizens should be prosecuted by the Mexican government regardless of where that crime occurs to avoid confusion over who has jurisdiction over illegal aliens. Mexicans aren't American citizens, they shouldn't be able to (or have to) reap the rewards (or drawbacks) of our justice systems when they commit crimes here. However, I think it is the sole responsibility of a nation to defend its own borders, however the bordering nation could certainly do so out of neighborliness.

Amd all of this has nothing to do with anything in the topic at hand.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Very true

I did that at Ellis Island. I am glad to say I passed the test.

I’ve never taken it
I feel like I wouldnt

[Valgora]

What do you mean "bring a child into a situation a child shouldn't have brought into the first place"? Because if you want a family and you want a better life (or the hope of one) in America, it makes sense that you might want to have your family with you.
Not only that, but how can we be so sure that illegal immigrants are having children for the selfish reason you claim vs. illegal immigrants having children for any other reason?

The 14th Amendment was not a mistake.

Suppose you come to America BEFORE you have children. Does it not stand to reason that the circumstances make it selfish, in and of itself, to have kids?

No. Simply having the children doesn't not automatically make it selfish. Because at that point, then having children for any reason would be selfish since you're not thinking about why they are choosing (or possibly not but it happens anyway) to have a child after coming to America.

[Ifreann]

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

Do you have a source describing the drafters viewpoint?

This is one of the policies I most anticipate and support. I'm a US historian (not professionally) and the 14th amendment was never intended to give citizenship to anchor babies. It was to resolve the question of what to do with the relatively large population of Black southerners that were formerly slaves. The goal was to give these Blacks US citizenship but it was poorly written in haste, which is why the birthright citizenship problem has come to exist.

"However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion."
Wikipedia

Also, due to the fact that the idea of Birthright Citizenship is considered part of the 14th Amendment whether or not that was the original intention means that a Constitutional Amendment is required to change it. Something that can't be done with an Executive Order.

First page of the thread.

[Des-Bal]

So I’ve decided that everyone who supports this should be mandated to legally go through the process of becoming a citizen
If they fail to make it through they’re deported

That's a silly and illogical thing that comes up anytime someone talks about immigration. I don't see why our way of doing things is better than the way that most countries do it.

[Valgora]

"Anchor babies" - because apparently that's a massive problem even compared to other issues that seem to be of more importance.

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.

It ain't as important as some people make it out to be.
There are simply issues that are much more important in my opinion.

[Saranidia]

I did that at Ellis Island. I am glad to say I passed the test.

I’ve never taken it
I feel like I wouldnt

Well I wouldn't advise living in America at present, quite fascist.

[Page]

So I’ve decided that everyone who supports this should be mandated to legally go through the process of becoming a citizen
If they fail to make it through they’re deported

That's a silly and illogical thing that comes up anytime someone talks about immigration. I don't see why our way of doing things is better than the way that most countries do it.

It's not a serious suggestion. It's a snarky way of pointing out that how much one hates immigrants is usually inversely proportional to how well they would do on the test.

[Petrasylvania]

So I’ve decided that everyone who supports this should be mandated to legally go through the process of becoming a citizen
If they fail to make it through they’re deported

Isn't it funny how people keep proposing batshit ideas assuming it will never touch them?

[Holy Tedalonia]

They are only American citizens in name only, they are likely to be raised by foreign parents, raising them on foreign ideals. Americans should be raised on American ideals, it makes a more cohesive society, allowing less friction between sub-cultures. This is why we have a painfully long citizenship system, to ensure that people adopt American ideals. And their attempting to bypass that system.

Even if they don’t intend it originally, they eventually depend on the anchor baby method. Using it to not be deported. The fact is they use their children as reasons to stay in the USA, even when otherwise they would have been deported. This is a clear legal loophole.

If only people were as concerned about legal loopholes when it comes to corporations zero income tax and the American military using white phosphorous as a chemical weapon.

Just because a legal loophole doesn’t concern many people, it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ignore it. Loopholes and poor laws is how corruption usually takes control of a government

That's quite a generalization you're making too. You realize that these kids end up going to public schools, right? They tend to meet Americans and adapt to the culture. One gets culture from how they're raised, not from their ethnic background.

Yes, that’s true, however when a kid returns home their parents remind or influence them on who they are. I consider myself different from my generation, having closer ties with earlier generations, and I consider that it was my father who raised me that way.

To assume that, a parent doesn’t influence or enforce the type of culture the kid is a part of is a silly way of thinking.

[Shofercia]

It's honestly not that difficult. Just took it. 100%. Only guessed right on one question - when you have to register for selective service, I didn't realize that 26 was the limit, but the rest of the answers made even less sense