Trump to end birthright citizenship to people who illegally enter the U.S.

Rubricnigel said:

Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order

In a move that most agree should have happened decades ago, Trump weighs in on ending the issue of "anchor babies".

Some say he doesnt have the power by signing an executive order, others say he can. The constitution isn't worded to say he cant, and the 14th amendment (originally written for slaves and Indians) doesn't specifically say its allowed. Its only been interpreted that way since the 1965 immigration bill. One thing i think has forced his hand, is the foot dragging by Congress in erecting the wall, and passing immigration reform (With the Republicans not willing to go through with decades long promises too)

I can say with 100% certaint, if he signs the order, the 9th circuit will knock it down within minutes, forcing the scotus to take the issue up, which legally speaking, Trump will win.

More info in the link below.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why one person should be able to determine citizenship by order. Whether or not he can would be a legal question. But even if he could, why should one person, who would be 'in charge' no more than 8 years, be able to make this decision? Shouldn't this be something for Congress to decide?

Didn't Republicans hate executive orders when it was Obama? But now it's supposed to be OK? What happens when it's a Democrat back in the White House? Is rule by executive order bad again then?

I think it is time for more women to really take a mindset like, waiting with the sex until they can raise and take care of their babies or using proper birthcontrol or else they can end up having to adopt away a child or becoming mothers.

Yekcidmij said:

I'm not sure why one person should be able to determine citizenship by order. Whether or not he can would be a legal question. But even if he could, why should one person, who would be 'in charge' no more than 8 years, be able to make this decision? Shouldn't this be something for Congress to decide?

Didn't Republicans hate executive orders when it was Obama? But now it's supposed to be OK? What happens when it's a Democrat back in the White House? Is rule by executive order bad again then?

Click to expand...

Pardon, but this is a Republic. The president is doing what was asked of him by the majority. However, the president also knows that if he signs an executive order it will be challenged by the 9th and that will then require Congress to act. If the 9th doesn't then they will be considered in agreement and Congress will pass it off onto any and everybody but themselves. So by acting they have included more than just ONE person in the decision. By not acting they have included more than one person. By signing the president has represented the majority. Win-win.

But the decisions of the 9th ONLY affect things in that district.

Yekcidmij said:

I'm not sure why one person should be able to determine citizenship by order.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that why the South seceded?

Didn't we fight a war over that?

Wasn't the whole country involved?

marineimaging said:

Pardon, but this is a Republic. The president is doing what was asked of him by the majority.

Click to expand...

Majority of what? The Electoral College? Certainly not the majority of voters, or citizens.

marineimaging said:

Pardon, but this is a Republic. The president is doing what was asked of him by the majority. However, the president also knows that if he signs an executive order it will be challenged by the 9th and that will then require Congress to act. If the 9th doesn't then they will be considered in agreement and Congress will pass it off onto any and everybody but themselves. So by acting they have included more than just ONE person in the decision. By not acting they have included more than one person. By signing the president has represented the majority. Win-win.

Click to expand...

UMMM? No! The majority did not ask him to change the constitution. Matter of fact, he lost the popular vote.

Rubricnigel said:

One person shouldn't be able to, i agree.
But this forces the issue, the issue that should have been handled 50 years ago.

As for the E.O. i never like the idea with Obama, Bush, whomever, but its the way it is, and when Obama was signing all his E.O.'s i said, when the Republicans get back in power the democrats will hate E.O's and rhe Republicans will love them.
Neither party will do away with it, because they know every 8 years we citizens forget and they get to use it again.

I hope Trump signs an E.O. to end all E.O.'s forever

Click to expand...

Well, the purpose and reason for an Executive Order is to execute the business of the branch. That's how the president says, "Y'all do this" in a hard-structured way to get Executive Branch business done.

Executive Orders correspond to "regulations" and "operations orders" in the military.

Rubricnigel said:

I can say with 100% certaint, if he signs the order, the 9th circuit will knock it down within minutes, forcing the scotus to take the issue up, which legally speaking, Trump will win.

Click to expand...

The scotus is not going to rule in favor of trump. The "anchor baby" is a situation that exist long before trump.

Does the also mean illegal immigrants from Russia and Europe. Or just the illegal immigrants from the poop hole countries

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Does the also mean illegal immigrants from Russia and Europe. Or just the illegal immigrants from the poop hole countries

Click to expand...

Neither. The president does not have the power to do this.

marineimaging said:

Pardon, but this is a Republic. The president is doing what was asked of him by the majority.

Click to expand...

Being a "Republic" doesn't mean that one man gets to do what the majority wants him to do.

In any case, we're a federal republic with separation of powers. And we have separation of powers because it's generally a bad idea to have one person or one group ruling by fiat.

However, the president also knows that if he signs an executive order it will be challenged by the 9th and that will then require Congress to act.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you know what he knows and that you know his tactics. Did he tell you all this?

Maybe it is just a tactic, but in the even that neither the courts nor Congress act, then it's rule by executive fiat, and that's still a bad idea whether or not the procedure itself is technically legal or carries through on a technicality. Nor does it become a good idea simply because this fiat happens to be in accordance with a majority.

I don't think we want a system where one person can rule by fiat so long as the majority is on their side (assuming the majority agrees with the idea in question here). This is simply a form of mob rule and the purpose of government should be to secure the natural rights of the citizenry, not to rule through one person in accordance with what a simple majority wishes on any particular day.

Desk trauma said:

Neither. The president does not have the power to do this.

Click to expand...

Yes, I get this. I just wonder about his way of thinking.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Yes, I get this. I just wonder about his way of thinking.

Click to expand...

considering he has treated the presidency like a kingship up until this point is probably all the thinking that he has put into it. he decides something and then is baffled or frustrated by it when it is not allowed to go through and then he throws a child's tantrum.
this just shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt the right has become these days that they would even be okay with a president even attempting to legislate away an amendment.

Rubricnigel said:

I can say with 100% certaint, if he signs the order, the 9th circuit will knock it down within minutes, forcing the scotus to take the issue up, which legally speaking, Trump will win.

Click to expand...

I think you shouldn't be quite so confident in your certainty.

Rubricnigel said:

Its only been interpreted that way since the 1965 immigration bill.

Click to expand...

During the debate on the Amendment, Senator John Conness of California declared, "The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law [the Civil Rights Act]; now it is proposed to incorporate that same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage, whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal Civil Rights with other citizens.".

Roseonathorn said:

I think it is time for more women to really take a mindset like, waiting with the sex until they can raise and take care of their babies or using proper birthcontrol or else they can end up having to adopt away a child or becoming mothers.

Click to expand...

So, the entire onus is on the woman? How about the man keeping it in his pants?

Rubricnigel said:

<Snip>
I can say with 100% certaint, if he signs the order, the 9th circuit will knock it down within minutes, forcing the scotus to take the issue up, which legally speaking, Trump will win.

Click to expand...

Then I can say with certainty you have no idea how the courts work.