Donald Trump does not get to change the constitution all on his own. The 14th amendment is clear: a person born in the US is a US citizen. End of discussion.
Until there are consequences for actions, he gets to do whatever the hell he likes. It may be unconstitutional but his bootlickers and lackeys will round up people until someone/s actually yanks his chain and brings him into line.
> but his bootlickers and lackeys will round up people until someone/s actually yanks his chain and brings him into line.
reply
he has packed the SCOTUS and Congress. at this point the only amendment that will stop him is the 2nd Amendment. we'll see if the US leftwing has the stomach for that, cuz I bet they don't.
I think Trump is clearly wrong on this and the Constitution clearly supports birth-right citizenship and it is backed by precedence. But, this will probably be challenged in the Supreme Court and despite what people think the Court uphold birth-right. I don't think they are going to "round" anyone up because of this; I think it is more about future citizens.
The other thing that I don't understand, all these leftist Americans that think America is terrible and Europe is clearly superior, are they able to name any countries that support birth-right citizenship?
What does it say about the current president that he would sign an executive order that directly contravenes the constitution.
Are we to take solace in that his worst actions will be rejected by the court?
Can we not have a good faith actor instead?
Is it not possible to have a president that begins from a position of knowledge and respect for the constitution? And thus this detour via the court system is made unnecessary?
Many Presidents, including Obama, etc, have supported orders and legislation that are unconstitutional; this is pretty common. As far as this issue, he has some people that think they can make an argument that the 14th doesn't apply, he has been wrongly advised about that, in my view.
all these leftist Americans that think America is terrible and Europe is clearly superior, are they able to name any countries that support birth-right citizenship
not sure who exactly you are referring to but even people that I know that think Europe is "superior" do not thing that Europe is superior in every way. unlike all these rightist Americans the leftist ones believe in the US Constitution though :)
Then why is there so much vitriol about this particular point about birth-right citizenship? People act as if ending birth-right citizenship (leftists, in this case) is some kind of apocalypse (even though this action will fail).
simple - because it is unconstitutional which rightist seemed to not really care about these days (even ones that funnily carry a pocket version to show to MSM…)
Obama and other presidents put forth orders and legislation that was unconstitutional and the I didn't see the left freaking out about it so maybe try again?
There's another alternative, one pursued successfully in gun ownership and overturning settled law: do it judicially. SCOTUS can find some way to interpret a reasonably clear text to mean something else.
The smart advisors around him pursue a loophole that relies on the text “invasion”. If framing immigration like that can be woven into a brief for the Supreme Court, it gives the 2/9 swing votes some cover.
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 SCOTUS long ago held that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does mean something. For example it means that children of diplomats and tourists are not U.S. citizens because those diplomats and tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". There were debates in the Congress at the time about this.
Whether that applies to other cases is yet to be seen. But let's not pretend like it's obviously clear that the 14A means birthright citizenship no matter the circumstances, or that there aren't controversies here for the courts to settle.
That's an argument Trump is betting on. I find it very disappointing that his opponents shout that it's clearly unconstitutional without addressing the point.
Reasonable way to approach it would be to try to understand what the authors meant back then. Maybe they meant something completely different but why not address the obvious point the other side is making?
I also think granting citizenship to children of people who are in a country illegally is silly and I find it very disappointing that Trump's opponents are so ideologically driven and frankly blind to popular sentiment that they can't even admit it. They make it sound like an attack on human rights or some racist policy while the whole thing is ridiculous. It's rewarding people for breaking the law - the worse kind of policy you can come up with. There is a reason very few countries have this kind of rule.
The executive cannot unilaterally defy plain English constitutional rules without precedent, yes. That doesn't mean the constitution is a computer program.
The federal government's power to regulate business applies only to interstate commerce too, clearly and obviously in the text of the constitution. Look at where we are now.
The US has been able to survive for centuries under a single constitution (unlike most countries, e.g. France) because we have a tradition of interpreting and reinterpreting the constitution in ways that let us face the unanticipated challenges any civilization faces.
The "abuse" of the commerce clause isn't "bad" per se: rules do need to get made sometimes. The US would not be nearly as prosperous as it is today if the government were bound by the literal text of the commerce clause.
It's the same for other provisions of the constitution: famously, the document is "not a suicide pact". If we have a civilization-scale problem to solve, we'll find room in constitutional jurisprudence to solve it.
so a child born to two legal immigrants instantly becomes an illegal immigrant as soon as it pops out. because it has neither a visa nor a us citizenship
Looks like the intention is to force courts and legislative decision on a constitutional matter. I guess most in congress want to keep the babies and the young. The general population is usually emotional and protective about culture and race. Trump had to do it to appease them and make it someone else’s problem
