(OT) Trump on birthright citizenship

[*skriptis]

<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H0d21nQBY8o>


Journo: On immigration, some legal scholars believe you can get
rid of birthright citizenship without changing the
constitution?

Trump: With the executive order!

Journo: Exactly.

Trump: Right.

Journo: Have you thought about it?

Trump: Yes!

Journo: Tell me more?


And he tells more....


Good to see Trump seizing the media cycle once again. Fake bombs
or shooting tragedies done by deranged crazies shouldn't dominate
the political discussion.

He knows it and so he goes on the offensive.


--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[jdeluise]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:39:51 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> He knows it and so he goes on the offensive.

Perhaps Trump needs Khan's copy of the constitution after all?

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:39:51 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
>
>> He knows it and so he goes on the offensive.
>
> Perhaps Trump needs Khan's copy of the constitution after all?

Why?

Many argue birth citizenship in USA in unconstitutional, let alone
that Trump or congress wouldn't be able to abolish it even if
were a legal loophole.

From what I've read, and being passed immediately after civil war
it's clear they meant to give citizenship to the freed slaves, ie
include them in the nation, they're unlikely to have had the idea
or had plans of giving citizenship to anyone who happens to come
out someone's vagina on the territory of USA.

If so, in. could be problematic as e.g. enemy force could easily
exploit it.

What if Germany or Japan or Soviet union or China or Mexico or
Russia or anyone were sending their women to give birth in USA
and were getting thousands, tens of thousands or million
citizenships per year thus taking over?

It doesn't seem like the smartesr law to have, imo.


Anyway, I couldn't care less about the issue, but this is so
interesting and shows us the NPC terror.

NPCs get angry when stuff get discussed.


Trunp merely floats the idea and:

<https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1419378-npc-wojak>

[Whisper]

On 31/10/2018 7:35 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:39:51 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>>> He knows it and so he goes on the offensive.
>>
>> Perhaps Trump needs Khan's copy of the constitution after all?
>
>
> Why?
>
> Many argue birth citizenship in USA in unconstitutional, let alone
> that Trump or congress wouldn't be able to abolish it even if
> were a legal loophole.
>
> From what I've read, and being passed immediately after civil war
> it's clear they meant to give citizenship to the freed slaves, ie
> include them in the nation, they're unlikely to have had the idea
> or had plans of giving citizenship to anyone who happens to come
> out someone's vagina on the territory of USA.
>
> If so, in. could be problematic as e.g. enemy force could easily
> exploit it.
>
> What if Germany or Japan or Soviet union or China or Mexico or
> Russia or anyone were sending their women to give birth in USA
> and were getting thousands, tens of thousands or million
> citizenships per year thus taking over?
>
> It doesn't seem like the smartesr law to have, imo.
>
>
> Anyway, I couldn't care less about the issue, but this is so
> interesting and shows us the NPC terror.
>

Seems logical on the surface. Imo at least 1 of your parents needs to
be a citizen for you to have a claim, preferably both. If none of them
are then you are not a citizen imo.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

[jdeluise]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:35:47 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:39:51 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
>>
>>> He knows it and so he goes on the offensive.
>>
>> Perhaps Trump needs Khan's copy of the constitution after all?
>
>
> Why?
>
> Many argue birth citizenship in USA in unconstitutional, let alone
> that Trump or congress wouldn't be able to abolish it even if were a
> legal loophole.

Trump cannot "abolish" (repeal) an amendment. This requires an
additional amendment via congress. So, you (and Trump) are factually
incorrect here, and it's quite a dangerous proposition... you'd like to
override the constitution based on some short-term political issue?

>
> From what I've read, and being passed immediately after civil war
> it's clear they meant to give citizenship to the freed slaves, ie
> include them in the nation, they're unlikely to have had the idea or
> had plans of giving citizenship to anyone who happens to come out
> someone's vagina on the territory of USA.

The constitution is not intended to serve short term interests (that
doesn't mean it hasn't happened.. see prohibition), it is to act as the
fabric of the laws and the nature of the people of the United States.
That is exactly *why* there are so few amendments.

But this is all besides the point, Trump's job is to uphold the
constitution, he *cannot* and will not repeal any amendments. And the
language of this amendment is crystal clear (unlike some).

This idea that an executive order can override the constitution is a
transparent attempt to appease the more ignorant portions of his base.

>
> If so, in. could be problematic as e.g. enemy force could easily
> exploit it.
>
> What if Germany or Japan or Soviet union or China or Mexico or
> Russia or anyone were sending their women to give birth in USA and were
> getting thousands, tens of thousands or million citizenships per year
> thus taking over?

This is extreme hyperbole, essentially a strawman.

>
> It doesn't seem like the smartesr law to have, imo.

That is irrelevant.

[phatr...@gmail.com]

"attempt to appease the more ignorant portions of his base. "

a majority of those seem to live here on rec.sport.tennis

[*skriptis]

phatr...@gmail.com Wrote in message:

> "attempt to appease the more ignorant portions of his base. "
>
> a majority of those seem to live here on rec.sport.tennis
>

If Roddick's wife had given a birth while they were together
during Shanghai masters, would his kid earn Chinese
citizenship?

Why?

If bob travels to your Morocco with his wife to see star wars
movie set, and Bob's wife gives birth there would you give that
kid a citizenship?

Would you and why?


What "birth rights" could Bob's offspring even have in a foreign
land, a land which that kid's ancestors didn't built?


It's bizzare suggestion, this is Orwellian talk, nothing else.
Everything is upside down.

The so called "birght rights" if one wants to use the term, well
in the US only biological descendants from George Washington
could have something like "birth rights".

PS George Washington is a metaphor for people of that stock from
that period.

Let's use the language the way it's meant to be used, ok?
--

[PeteWasLucky]

Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com> Wrote in message:

But first Australians were not Australians, they were prisoners in
overcrowded prisons.

So your logic doesn't work.

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 20:46:05 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> If Roddick's wife had given a birth while they were together
> during Shanghai masters, would his kid earn Chinese citizenship?
>
> Why?
>
> If bob travels to your Morocco with his wife to see star wars
> movie set, and Bob's wife gives birth there would you give that kid a
> citizenship?
>
> Would you and why?
>
>
> What "birth rights" could Bob's offspring even have in a foreign
> land, a land which that kid's ancestors didn't built?
>
>
> It's bizzare suggestion, this is Orwellian talk, nothing else.
> Everything is upside down.
>
> The so called "birght rights" if one wants to use the term, well
> in the US only biological descendants from George Washington could have
> something like "birth rights".
>
> PS George Washington is a metaphor for people of that stock from
> that period.
>
> Let's use the language the way it's meant to be used, ok?

You're wasting your time *skriptis, whether you think it's right or wrong
is irrelevant. The text is right there in the constitution and is crystal
clear. Trump *cannot* repeal it, and in fact he was elected in part to
uphold the constitution regardless of his opinion; even alt-righters
would agree with that, I think. Except the ring kissers...

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

It's not about Trump.

If he can't do it, then guess what, he won't try, or the courts
will block him or whatever.

It's not about the technical aspects of change, smart legal
experts will find the proper way to do, it, this is about the
essence.

Ted Cruz also claimed it's a dumb law, amendment, practice,
whatever and that is not sustainable.

And from what I've seen Cruz is such a constitutional freak. He
loves the constitution.

So nobody's trying to "do something illegal" as you claim.



Bottom line, do you think it's ok that Djokovic's wife gives birth
during USO in New York and his kid gets US passport?

Yes or no?

You're free to think it's ok, and you can want that. It's fine.

But I think it's fine if someone holds different views.

Don't you?




--

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:35:58 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> It's not about Trump.

It is in the sense that he is trying to drum up his small base who don't
understand how their own government works. I can guarantee this is just
bluster, and completely politically motivated.

>
> If he can't do it, then guess what, he won't try, or the courts
> will block him or whatever.

He can't. It's not within his jurisdiction. I repeat, he was elected to
uphold the constitution, anything less is a dereliction of duty.

>
> It's not about the technical aspects of change, smart legal
> experts will find the proper way to do, it, this is about the essence.

There would be no "proper" way to do it than a new constitutional
amendment. You are simply incorrect.

>
> Ted Cruz also claimed it's a dumb law, amendment, practice,
> whatever and that is not sustainable.
>
> And from what I've seen Cruz is such a constitutional freak. He
> loves the constitution.

So now you're touting the opinion of "Lyin' Ted Cruz"? :) Has he
renounced his Canadian citizenship?

>
> So nobody's trying to "do something illegal" as you claim.

So, you're saying a Trump executive order holds more weight than the
constitution? This is a very ignorant and dangerous point of view
*skriptis. You've hit a new low.

>
> Bottom line, do you think it's ok that Djokovic's wife gives birth
> during USO in New York and his kid gets US passport?
>
> Yes or no?
>
> You're free to think it's ok, and you can want that. It's fine.
>
> But I think it's fine if someone holds different views.
>
> Don't you?

Sure. As I've stated many times here I also am a dual citizen. But it's
not about your opinion or my opinion, it's about what's in the
constitution and who has the power to change it. He can have his opinion
too, but Trump has no say over this. He should stick with upholding the
constitution rather than stuffing it in the paper shredder.

[soccerfan777]

Can he be impeached for attempting to doing this? I hope there is a clause which says you can be impeached for something blatantly vile and retarded at the same time.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

We're making some progress but please stop putting words in my mouth.

You claiming that I said Trump could change the constitution
himself, that's dishonest. Please stop.



First of all, this issue is of course US matter but for me it's
interesting in some other ways. I see social signs of our times
here, I see how NPCs freak out at the mere suggestion of an open
debate about anything. Historians will study this period believe
me.

These guys who are fed information directly from the source, like
Borg drones, want a total shut down of any individuality, or
personal expressiveness.

They're angry and offended because US president is publicly
commenting on some political issues or announcing he'd do things
differently, or would try.

And they're angry.

But not in a way that they disagree with it, they're angry in a
way "how does he dare"?

How insane is that?




Ok, now directly to the issue.

Every politician wants to fire up his base, big deal. Of course
Trump is using it now to fire up the base before the election,
but what's that got to do with the substance?

The substance is do you like how it's at the moment, that
Djokovic's kid born during USO in New York, gets US passpprt.
That's the core issue, simple yes or no?

Trump is escalating now for the midterms, but do you think he's
gonna change his mind after the midterms? Of course not. If
anything he's consistent in his message for the past 3 years.




As for the matter itself, even Washington post claims Trump is
half right, that at least congress can change it as it's not
certain whether the birthright citizenship is even in the 14th
amendment. Who knows exactly. I never claimed specifics.


It's a legal matter, and it isn't interesting that much, that's
why I said if it can be done, they'll do it.

Whether it's executive order, congress, perhaps supreme court
reinterpreting it or new amendment. Obviously you try first with
the easiest approach, that's EO.


But for me it's about:
1. NPC freaking out
2. Substance, birthright citizenship, yes or no, not discussion
about legal aspects.

--

[jdeluise]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 23:02:45 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

<snip>

>
> Ok, now directly to the issue.
>
> Every politician wants to fire up his base, big deal. Of course
> Trump is using it now to fire up the base before the election, but
> what's that got to do with the substance?

Trump was elected to uphold the constitution. Anything less is
dereliction of duty.

>
> The substance is do you like how it's at the moment, that
> Djokovic's kid born during USO in New York, gets US passpprt. That's
> the core issue, simple yes or no?

It's been in the constitution for 150 years with crystal clear language,
haven't you read it? Obviously I have no problem with it. We've already
been over this, it's a complete non-issue.

>
> Trump is escalating now for the midterms, but do you think he's
> gonna change his mind after the midterms? Of course not. If anything
> he's consistent in his message for the past 3 years.
>
> As for the matter itself, even Washington post claims Trump is
> half right, that at least congress can change it as it's not certain
> whether the birthright citizenship is even in the 14th amendment. Who
> knows exactly. I never claimed specifics.

Nobody is debating whether Congress can amend the constitution, it's in
the constitution itself! As for your other claim (that birthright
citizenship may not be in the 14th amendment), please provide citations.

Who knows? Anyone who has read the amendment (meaning *not* Trump's
base).

>
> It's a legal matter, and it isn't interesting that much, that's
> why I said if it can be done, they'll do it.
>
> Whether it's executive order, congress, perhaps supreme court
> reinterpreting it or new amendment. Obviously you try first with the
> easiest approach, that's EO.

Once again, only an act of congress will have any merit. We both know it
won't happen that way.

>
> But for me it's about:
> 1. NPC freaking out 2. Substance, birthright citizenship, yes or no, not
> discussion
> about legal aspects.

And in a very tangible way you are an NPC on this issue :)

The only important part is that Trump claims he can end birthright
citizenship with an EO... he can't, end of story. Your opinion and
Trump's are irrelevant.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

You're making this more about Trump than it was ever meant to be.

In fact, you're acting as his biggest fan, doing him a favour,
making this a referendum-like issue.


I really do not understand why are you constantly claiming that,
me, Trump himself, and Trump aides want to act illegally?

That's so irrelevant.

I've told you I'm not interested in legal stuff, I'm interesting
most in the core issue, the principle of having birthright
citizenship. You visit a country, have a kid, and then get
passpprt?

For me it doesn't seem smart to and it looks like many share the
view. Ted Cruz thinks so too. Why don't you say your
opinion?

How to do stop it legally, that's another issue, and the one
that's less interesting.

But Trump, and his aides would want to find a legal way, else they
won't succeed. Cruz a big constitution freak might also oppose
EO, but he's been on board with TRUMP, even before Trump came.




The kinda interesting part in a legal sense is this one. Maybe it
was interpreted wrongly the whole time?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-struggle-ove
r-the-meaning-of-the-14th-amendment-continues/564722/

So it's not all black and white. There are doubts and possible
dual interpretations, everyone admits it, it's obvious.


Trump and Cruz might attack from that side.

Just look at the text?

"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."

It says "Are", not "will be".

Also to to get citizenship you need both A and B criteria.

A. Born or naturalized
B. Subject of US


Foreign aliens born in the US are already subjects of another
countries. E.g. Djokovic's kid. So they don't satisfy B.


Freed slaves otoh were born in US and were subjects of US only. So
it was for them.


Looking at Wikipedia it's says Indians were excluded, they were
not given citizenship because they didn't satisfy B criteria.
They weren't full fledged subjects of US as they had their tribes
and some autonomy.

Also it was discussed what to do about ambassadors kids and they
were excluded too?

Following that line of reasoning it's almost very certain that it
was not meant to have birth tourism.

Anyway, at least it's obvious it's open for interpretation.


Trump is smart for seizing the media cycle.











--

[*skriptis]

*skriptis <skri...@post.t-com.hr> Wrote in message:

I need to clarify the Djokovic part.

If jelena gives birth during USO, their kid doesn't satisfy both A
and B.

A. Born or naturalized in US
B. Subject of US

Their kid is not s subject of US. They can have s baby in New York
and fly home to Monte Carlo or Serbia.

If the kid was totally and truly US subject then the US would have
ability, power, jurisdiction etc to e.g. ban them from taking the
kid with them?

The US can't do that, meaning that kid is not s proper US subject.



--

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:46:34 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

<snip>

>
>
> I really do not understand why are you constantly claiming that,
> me, Trump himself, and Trump aides want to act illegally?
>
> That's so irrelevant.

Trump himself said today (paraphrasing here) "I can end birthright
citizenship without an amendment. I think I can do it with an executive
order.

I think it's important the President has so very little understanding of
established law, considering he was elected to enforce them. Maybe it's
"irrelevant" in Russia?

>
> I've told you I'm not interested in legal stuff, I'm interesting
> most in the core issue, the principle of having birthright citizenship.
> You visit a country, have a kid, and then get passpprt?
>
> For me it doesn't seem smart to and it looks like many share the
> view. Ted Cruz thinks so too. Why don't you say your opinion?

We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
yourself is of no consequence.

>
> How to do stop it legally, that's another issue, and the one
> that's less interesting.

We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
yourself is of no consequence.

>
> But Trump, and his aides would want to find a legal way, else they
> won't succeed. Cruz a big constitution freak might also oppose EO, but
> he's been on board with TRUMP, even before Trump came.

We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
yourself is of no consequence.

>
> The kinda interesting part in a legal sense is this one. Maybe it
> was interpreted wrongly the whole time?
>
> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-struggle-ove
> r-the-meaning-of-the-14th-amendment-continues/564722/
>
> So it's not all black and white. There are doubts and possible
> dual interpretations, everyone admits it, it's obvious.

We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
yourself is of no consequence.

>
> Trump and Cruz might attack from that side.
>
> Just look at the text?
>
> "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."
>
> It says "Are", not "will be".

Huh? If you've been born you "are", not "will be".

>
> Also to to get citizenship you need both A and B criteria.
>
> A. Born or naturalized B. Subject of US

Nice try, you subtly changed the text of the constitution because you
think it suits your argument. It did NOT say "Subject of US", it said
"subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they have completely different
meanings.

>
>
> Foreign aliens born in the US are already subjects of another
> countries. E.g. Djokovic's kid. So they don't satisfy B.

They may be "subjects" (citizens) of another nation, but they are still
subject to US jurisdiction where it comes to enforcement of law.

>
> Freed slaves otoh were born in US and were subjects of US only. So
> it was for them.
>
> Looking at Wikipedia it's says Indians were excluded, they were
> not given citizenship because they didn't satisfy B criteria. They
> weren't full fledged subjects of US as they had their tribes and some
> autonomy.

It is true that Indian reservations are essentially enclaves with some
legal jurisdiction in the US. Of course their degree of autonomy has
weakened significantly since those times.

>
> Also it was discussed what to do about ambassadors kids and they
> were excluded too?
>
> Following that line of reasoning it's almost very certain that it
> was not meant to have birth tourism.
>
> Anyway, at least it's obvious it's open for interpretation.
>
>
> Trump is smart for seizing the media cycle.

Come on now, do you really think this is about "birth tourism"?

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:46:34 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>
>> I really do not understand why are you constantly claiming that,
>> me, Trump himself, and Trump aides want to act illegally?
>>
>> That's so irrelevant.
>
> Trump himself said today (paraphrasing here) "I can end birthright
> citizenship without an amendment. I think I can do it with an executive
> order.
>
> I think it's important the President has so very little understanding of
> established law, considering he was elected to enforce them. Maybe it's
> "irrelevant" in Russia?

How is Russia relevant when the alleged illegal stuff is about to
happen in USA?

It's not happening in Russia.


Also, you are very malicious.
Him saying "I can end it" is a normal political pushing.

USA can't declare war without congress but presidents have seized
the power in recent decades through legal loopholes and now can
bomb any country they like without asking your parliament,
right?

If it goes it goes.

This stuff is simply another attempt of one president of doing
what he feels is right, what should be done, e.g. stop giving
citizenship to aliens, and it's just a matter of finding proper
legal ways of doing it.

You're a truly bizzare person if you ever felt or thought Trump is
trying or would try to convince folks "let's just go with it coz
I say so".

And what's this with Russia obsession?
It's deranged. Honestly, get a pill.

>>
>> I've told you I'm not interested in legal stuff, I'm interesting
>> most in the core issue, the principle of having birthright citizenship.
>> You visit a country, have a kid, and then get passpprt?
>>
>> For me it doesn't seem smart to and it looks like many share the
>> view. Ted Cruz thinks so too. Why don't you say your opinion?
>
> We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
> yourself is of no consequence.

You didn't state your opinion, you can't even say whether you
agree or disagree with the current practice.
Lame.

>>
>> How to do stop it legally, that's another issue, and the one
>> that's less interesting.
>
> We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
> yourself is of no consequence.

You didn't state your opinion, you can't even say whether you
agree or disagree with the current practice.
Lame.

>
>>
>> But Trump, and his aides would want to find a legal way, else they
>> won't succeed. Cruz a big constitution freak might also oppose EO, but
>> he's been on board with TRUMP, even before Trump came.
>
> We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
> yourself is of no consequence.

You didn't state your opinion, you can't even say whether you
agree or disagree with the current practice.
Lame.

>> The kinda interesting part in a legal sense is this one. Maybe it
>> was interpreted wrongly the whole time?
>>
>> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-struggle-ove
>> r-the-meaning-of-the-14th-amendment-continues/564722/
>>
>> So it's not all black and white. There are doubts and possible
>> dual interpretations, everyone admits it, it's obvious.
>
>
> We've been over this. Putting your fingers in your ears and repeating
> yourself is of no consequence.

You didn't state your opinion, you can't even say whether you
agree or disagree with the current practice.
Lame.

>>
>> Trump and Cruz might attack from that side.
>>
>> Just look at the text?
>>
>> "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."
>>
>> It says "Are", not "will be".
>
> Huh? If you've been born you "are", not "will be".

Full rights are given in adulthood?

>> Also to to get citizenship you need both A and B criteria.
>>
>> A. Born or naturalized B. Subject of US
>
> Nice try, you subtly changed the text of the constitution because you
> think it suits your argument. It did NOT say "Subject of US", it said
> "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they have completely different
> meanings.

But Djokovic's kid born in New York during USO is not subject to
jurisdiction of US.

What you have a case is two foreign citizens (Djokovic and wife)
taking underage US citizen out of the country against the will of
the baby and USA can't stop it?

What kind of jurisdiction is that?

E.g. USA could ban its citizens of traveling to Monaco, but they
could not stop Djokovic from taking a US citizen (his son) there.


It's perfectly clear US have no supreme jurisdiction over kids
born in USA to foreign nationals.

So that imo is a legal loophole.


The whole amendment was about freed slaves, the fact Indians were
excluded and didn't become citizens until 1924 through another
act is enough for anyone, if not to dismiss the birthright
citizenship, then at least to doubt the original intent.

>>
>>
>> Foreign aliens born in the US are already subjects of another
>> countries. E.g. Djokovic's kid. So they don't satisfy B.
>
> They may be "subjects" (citizens) of another nation, but they are still
> subject to US jurisdiction where it comes to enforcement of law.
>
>>
>> Freed slaves otoh were born in US and were subjects of US only. So
>> it was for them.
>>
>> Looking at Wikipedia it's says Indians were excluded, they were
>> not given citizenship because they didn't satisfy B criteria. They
>> weren't full fledged subjects of US as they had their tribes and some
>> autonomy.
>
> It is true that Indian reservations are essentially enclaves with some
> legal jurisdiction in the US. Of course their degree of autonomy has
> weakened significantly since those times.

Reservations, ha?

Guess what, sanctuary cities that place themselves out of the
scope of federal law are kinda rebelling, and since the USA isn't
cracking down on it, that would mean they're de facto autonomous,
meaning all illegals born there are not subjects of US
jurisdiction.

Just like Indians in reservations weren't.
Sanctuary cities are like reservations.

So we could kinda discuss about birthright citizenship for,a kid
born somewhere,else, but for those born in sanctuary cities,
there's no way for them,to,legally obtain citizenship even under
current, most inclusive interpreting of the 14th amendment.

>
>>
>> Also it was discussed what to do about ambassadors kids and they
>> were excluded too?
>>
>> Following that line of reasoning it's almost very certain that it
>> was not meant to have birth tourism.
>>
>> Anyway, at least it's obvious it's open for interpretation.
>>
>>
>> Trump is smart for seizing the media cycle.
>
> Come on now, do you really think this is about "birth tourism"?

No, I think people are essentially and rightfully worried about
being replaced and overrun by aliens.

E.g. Japan is the home of Japanese people, Israel is the home of
Jewish people, etc somehow only western countries have become
"everyone's home".

You may want it that way, but others living there have also voting
rights, and they may not feel that way.

So they elected Trump.


--

[Calimero]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 5:26:39 PM UTC+1, jdeluise wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:35:47 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
>
> > jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 14:39:51 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
> >>
> >>> He knows it and so he goes on the offensive.
> >>
> >> Perhaps Trump needs Khan's copy of the constitution after all?
> >
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Many argue birth citizenship in USA in unconstitutional, let alone
> > that Trump or congress wouldn't be able to abolish it even if were a
> > legal loophole.
>

> Trump cannot "abolish" (repeal) an amendment. ...


Then why are you wailing like crazy?



Max

[sawfish]

I'll start by stating that I'm unfamiliar with the legal foundation for "birthright citizenship" and am not in a position to do a little research to see what level of legal assurance it has. But I've noted with interest your comment now, and skriptis' and I feel that if neither of you are US residents, you may be unfamiliar with how the legal system works. I want to give you some information that you may or may not choose to use. And you both may know about this, already.

If birthright citizenship is based on a direct constitutional guarantee, to be completely revoked it will require a constitutional amendment. This is a lengthy process.

And in my opinion it is of extreme importance to make full use of the lawful mechanisms for changes to the social contract. Any shortcuts, to serve expediency based on philosophic or ideologic (or political) preferences, opens the door further to other shortcuts, which severely undermine the credibility of the legal system in the eyes of the general populace. From then on, it's a steep downhill slope.

It may well be that the change to the policy is completely justified and yields a desirable result, but that's not the point. I'd argue that a really good example of circumventing the legitimate process in favor of expediency is the Roe v. Wade decision in the 70s, which made abortion legal in all states, at the federal level, by playing fast and loose with the idea of search and seizure (4th amendment) and equal protection (14th) by the supreme court.

Personally, I think readily available abortion is good public policy: I think that anyone who does not want a child enough to want it to live should not have a child, since their influence on the child will likely create an anti-social misfit. Aborting Charles Manson, on demand, likely would have been good public policy.

But the actual legitimacy to grant availability for abortion does not exist in the constitution, and hence falls to the states, and after reading Roe v. Wade, complete, several times over the years, I'm not persuaded by the majority opinion. In fact, I see the issue as being closer to how each state decides, and administers, the death penalty. No one argues that the constitution, as it stands, makes it necessary for each state to outlaw (or enforce) a death penalty. It is within the purview of the states, each adopting a policy that is acceptable to its residents.

However, Roe v Wade is now the law and I'll follow it, for sake of social stability.

[Brian W Lawrence]

On 31/10/2018 21:23, soccerfan777 wrote:

> Can he be impeached for attempting to doing this? I hope there is a clause which says you can be impeached for something blatantly vile and retarded at the same time.

Well, firstly he hasn't done anything yet, and secondly the House of
Representatives were granted 'sole power' to initiate impeachment
proceedings by the Constitution. Basically the House decides for
itself what constitutes an impeachable offense.

"The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United
States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Should the House decide that impeachment is justified the House
Judiciary Committee will decide, by a majority, if grounds exist.
Their findings are then debated by the House, with a simple majority
deciding whether to proceed to the Senate for 'trial'.

The Senate would need a two thirds majority to dismiss the person
who was impeached.

[*skriptis]

Brian W Lawrence <brian_w_...@msn.com> Wrote in message:

Welcome back Brian.

Staying away from all the discussion, not giving an opinion on
anything, but as soon as Raja asks how could Trump be impeached
Bad News Brian is here to post a detailed description of the
procedure?

LOL


--

[The Iceberg]

yep! these Hillary fans are very funny and Brian wins Biggest Hillary Fan award! Hooray and welcome back Brian from me too! :D

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 07:00:30 -0700, sawfish wrote:

> But I've noted with interest your comment now, and skriptis' and I feel
> that if neither of you are US residents, you may be unfamiliar with how
> the legal system works

Let's remember Whisper suggested anyone with a gun should be put to death
earlier this year. He was quite adamant about it too, devoted several
posts to the idea.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Ever heard of hyperbole?

That was whispers way of stating he's against school shootings.

--

[jdeluise]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 11:25:43 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

<snip>

> You didn't state your opinion, you can't even say whether you
> agree or disagree with the current practice.
> Lame.

Not true, you just didn't read my replies.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

If so, then I'm sorry, I must have overlooked.

All I've seen is you saying Trump can't do anything, nothing about
whether you like the current policy of giving citizenship that
way.






--

[sawfish]

Surely he was speaking of Australia. :^)

[bob]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 22:11:14 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

i have friends who have family members (sister for ex) come to usa
from africa 9 months pregnant to have the baby - and he says his
sister is coming over to have an "anchor baby." his words. lol (well
it isn't funny).

bob

[bob]

there is intent, and then there are loopholes.

i don't think anybody ever intended for pregnant women in the 9th
month to rush across the border to have a baby so the baby can be a
citizen, and the mother can stay as the mother of a citizen. it's
absurd, but the law as of now.

bob

[bob]

your hate for trump is so great that you cannot carry on a
conversation without relating it to trump. time for some therapy.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:23:25 -0700 (PDT), soccerfan777
<zepf...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Can he be impeached for attempting to doing this?

he can be impeached for anything.

>I hope there is a clause which says you can be impeached for something blatantly vile and retarded at the same time.

bob

[bob]

let me clear this up for you: waleed doesn't want to have
conversations about opinions, he's only concerned and interested in
trump hatred and preventing trump from getting anything that he wants.
nothign else matters to waleed.

>How to do stop it legally, that's another issue, and the one
> that's less interesting.
>But Trump, and his aides would want to find a legal way, else they
> won't succeed. Cruz a big constitution freak might also oppose
> EO, but he's been on board with TRUMP, even before Trump came.
>The kinda interesting part in a legal sense is this one. Maybe it
> was interpreted wrongly the whole time?
>https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/the-struggle-ove
>r-the-meaning-of-the-14th-amendment-continues/564722/
>So it's not all black and white. There are doubts and possible
> dual interpretations, everyone admits it, it's obvious.
>Trump and Cruz might attack from that side.
>Just look at the text?
>"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."
>It says "Are", not "will be".
>Also to to get citizenship you need both A and B criteria.
>A. Born or naturalized
>B. Subject of US

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

:-)

>Foreign aliens born in the US are already subjects of another
> countries. E.g. Djokovic's kid. So they don't satisfy B.

>Freed slaves otoh were born in US and were subjects of US only. So
> it was for them.
>Looking at Wikipedia it's says Indians were excluded, they were
> not given citizenship because they didn't satisfy B criteria.
> They weren't full fledged subjects of US as they had their tribes
> and some autonomy.
>Also it was discussed what to do about ambassadors kids and they
> were excluded too?
>Following that line of reasoning it's almost very certain that it
> was not meant to have birth tourism.
>Anyway, at least it's obvious it's open for interpretation.
>Trump is smart for seizing the media cycle.

the courts are there to interpret the law, they will decide what the
written words mean.

i wonder what Mr. Kavanaugh thinks of amendment 14?

waleed, wanna talk about it? lmao!!!!


bob

[bob]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:36:33 GMT, jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 00:46:34 +0100, *skriptis wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>>
>> I really do not understand why are you constantly claiming that,
>> me, Trump himself, and Trump aides want to act illegally?
>>
>> That's so irrelevant.
>
>Trump himself said today (paraphrasing here) "I can end birthright
>citizenship without an amendment. I think I can do it with an executive
>order.
>I think it's important the President has so very little understanding of
>established law, considering he was elected to enforce them. Maybe it's
>"irrelevant" in Russia?

forget trump (i know, you can't do that), but the constitution is to
be interpreted by the courts. and we all know not all 9 of those on
the highest court interpret every word the same way.

bob

[PeteWasLucky]

> i have friends who have family members (sister for ex) come to usa
from africa 9 months pregnant to have the baby - and he says his
sister is coming over to have an "anchor baby." his words. lol (well
it isn't funny).

How do they get the visa? How do they fly being 9 months pregnant?

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 19:42:26 -0400, bob wrote:

> your hate for trump is so great that you cannot carry on a conversation
> without relating it to trump. time for some therapy.

Hate to break it to you bob since you thought you were making a witty
remark, but Trump's name is right there in the subject of the thread.

lol

[jdeluise]

On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 19:55:26 -0400, bob wrote:


>>
>>Trump himself said today (paraphrasing here) "I can end birthright
>>citizenship without an amendment. I think I can do it with an executive
>>order.
>>I think it's important the President has so very little understanding of
>>established law, considering he was elected to enforce them. Maybe it's
>>"irrelevant" in Russia?
>
> forget trump (i know, you can't do that), but the constitution is to be
> interpreted by the courts. and we all know not all 9 of those on the
> highest court interpret every word the same way.

The SCOTUS cannot repeal an amendment, or find an amendment
unconstitutional, if that's what you thought you meant.

[PeteWasLucky]

> Hate to break it to you bob since you thought you were making a witty
remark, but Trump's name is right there in the subject of the thread.

Bob disappears for weeks, then reply to all threads in couple of minutes with canned replies.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Trump
should create constitutional court and repeal all the
amendments he dislikes.

Most countries have it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_court



--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[jdeluise]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 01:20:48 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>

>> The SCOTUS cannot repeal an amendment, or find an amendment
>> unconstitutional, if that's what you thought you meant.
>

> Trumpshould create constitutional court and repeal all the

> amendments he dislikes.
>
> Most countries have it.
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_court

LOL!! Did you even read the article you posted? Compare it to what you
wrote. I think it's pretty clear you don't even know what a
constitutional amendment and should henceforth be tossed from this thread
with prejudice.

[*skriptis]

You're confusing my opinion with his options.

[jdeluise]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 01:32:32 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> You're confusing my opinion with his options.

As I said, read the definition in the article *you* linked (hint: the
first paragraph). It's at odds with what you think a constitutional
court could do.

Note, the SCOTUS is essentially a constitutional court.

[*skriptis]

jdeluise <jdel...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Yes, and Trump can improve it, everyone else in the world have a
separate constituent court so why wouldn't he go for
it?

If they block him from changin birthright policy he could get
angry, create separate constitutional court and repeal 14th
amendment entirely and enslave Africans and all non whites.


Don't push him. Find the middle ground while you can.

[jdeluise]

On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 01:50:11 +0100, *skriptis wrote:

> Yes, and Trump can improve it, everyone else in the world have a
> separate constituent court so why wouldn't he go for it?
>
> If they block him from changin birthright policy he could get
> angry, create separate constitutional court and repeal 14th amendment
> entirely and enslave Africans and all non whites.
>
> Don't push him. Find the middle ground while you can.

Time to put down the vodka!

[guypers]

Does Putinovsky pay well boyo?

[bob]

good question. she comes from a relatively wealthy family in the west
african country where they're from, i believe they have some pull to
get the visa. and perhaps she came at 7-8months? he made the joke of
9months - about his own sister! the guy also says that it's lame and
the USA shouldn't allow "anchor babies." (his words).

bob

[bob]

they cannot repeal it but they can interpret it.

bob

[bob]

yes, but the conversation had gone off from trump. you were asked a
simple question of opinion, and you refused to discuss it because of
TDS. just let it go. either 2 or 6 more yrs and you'll get a new
president.

bob

[Pelle Svanslös]

Gets his internet access from the same place he gets his coffee.

--
"We're trying to help you, Sir"
-- Paramedic in "Little Fockers"

[joh]

Trump released his tax returns yet?

[*skriptis]

joh <josh...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Nobody cares about that.

[The Iceberg]

this American guy I know said he well glad Trump has brought this up, he said USA must be the only country in the world left where they have this law, he said it stupid too.

[The Iceberg]

On Saturday, 3 November 2018 07:50:49 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 03/11/2018 2.11, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> >> Hate to break it to you bob since you thought you were making a witty
> > remark, but Trump's name is right there in the subject of the thread.
> >
> > Bob disappears for weeks, then reply to all threads in couple of minutes with canned replies.
> >
>
> Gets his internet access from the same place he gets his coffee.

John Liang is always on-hand to give out the wifi password! :D

[bob]

the intent of the amendment is clearly being bypassed, but that issue
isn't such a big deal to me. if the law says "born in usa, usa
citizen" not sure if we should try to change that for some latinos
crossing the mexican border.

sure it's wrong for a honduran woman to sneak across a texas border to
have a baby in texas and then the whole family gets to stay here and
clean toilets in exchange for latino votes. but hey, if that's what
they want....

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 01:12:13 -0700 (PDT), joh <josh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

that's an item for the IRS, not my concern. have you released yours?

[bob]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 10:21:45 +0100 (CET), *skriptis

i know. forgive joh, he's not too bright.

bob

[bob]

in exchange for 50cent tip! :-)

bob