Trump

[ShockerPrez]

I would love to know what these people believe Trumps ultimate end game is. I would ask them, "If Trump got everything he wanted, what does that look like?" And then obviously go through his process to get there. ie how's he going to do away with this group and that group, etc. When he will start doing that, etc.

It would be fascinating.

[C0|dB|00ded]

This is a profoundly enlightening interview. Gingrich carries so much gravitas Levin almost drowns in it sitting in the same room. Oh my if Newt would have only been president instead of GW Bush... what a great day that would have been. I don't believe there is a more informed and wise conservative politician on earth today than Newt Gingrich. Any time I see him on television I just drop everything. This interview was particularly fascinating though as the host (wisely) just let him speak for extended periods. So sharp!


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

"I'm not sure he's a conservative, but he's the most effective anti-liberal in my lifetime".

Superstar intellectual stuff. This interview should spread like wildfire.

Pay particular attention to the part about his conversations with the founder of Singapore, Liberals. Game over.


T


...:cool:

[jdshock]

I heard for eight years about how Obama relied far too heavily on executive orders, and now Trump reveals he thinks he can end birthright citizenship through an executive order?

[WuDrWu]

No argument from me. I hate executive orders. And while I think the President is right about this, I don't like the executive order and I don't think he should do it. Win the argument on the merits.

[SB Shock]

I heard for eight years about how Obama relied far too heavily on executive orders, and now Trump reveals he thinks he can end birthright citizenship through an executive order?

I don't like executive orders. I think their lazy and the way of doing things to subvert the process. I can see them being used when you need something done "now", but you intend to follow-up through the appropriate legislative channels.

I would expect the constitutionalists on the supreme court would see this executive order as unconstitutional and swat it down.

[shockfan89_]

I agree on executive orders. I think this should be a slam dunk for legislation though. Why should anyone benefit from an illegal activity? This benefit should be limited to legal citizens of the United States.

[FadedCrown]

One of my few gripes about Trump is that he is not fiscally conservative. Still though, he has been the best conservative president since Reagan.

[C0|dB|00ded]

It's not even a question. Watch the above Gingrich interview for a thorough education on where Trump ranks. Newt calls Trump, "Andrew Jackson", maybe the greatest disruptor in the history of our country. A disruptor is exactly what the doctor ordered after we found ourselves free-falling into a liberal abyss of ignorance and irresponsibility at the conclusion of Sheikh Hussein's reign of terror.


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

I heard for eight years about how Obama relied far too heavily on executive orders, and now Trump reveals he thinks he can end birthright citizenship through an executive order?

Obama used an executive order to hurt the American people by ripping away their affordable healthcare and replacing it with unaffordable healthcare in the biggest wealth grab/redistribution heist this country has ever seen. It was pure criminal, Soviet-esque.

Trump using an executive order to reverse a bastardization of the 14th amendment by an activist court would be in effect correcting a mistake to protect the people. And yes, I expect the new constitutionalist justices to see the liberal activism that brought us this debacle of anchor babies and chain migration and rule Trump's action as constitutional. They must rule that way.

This is not likely constitutional but I have no problem with people here LEGALLY, on temporary visas (students, vacationers, etc.), popping out a little one which goes on to enjoy dual citizenship with the native country and the U.S.

Asylum seekers' birth's citizenship should be held in limbo until such time as the immigration courts rule their claim for asylum valid. If they are in a camp waiting 2 years and pop out a whole family only to find out their claim is invalid... you do not pass Go, you do not collect 200 dollars; may God have mercy on your soul. Buh Bye!


T


...:cool:

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-slammed-as-disgraceful-after-jake-tapper-silent-when-guest-says-trump-radicalized-more-people-than-isis

CNN and star anchor Jake Tapper are under fire for remaining silent when a guest on his program declared that President Trump had radicalized more people than ISIS. Hours later, CNN’s Don Lemon drew the ire of Majority Whip Steve Scalise by declaring that Democrats don’t kill people, completing a 24-hour span being labeled CNN’s “new low” by critics.

T


...:cool:

[shockfan89_]

I heard for eight years about how Obama relied far too heavily on executive orders, and now Trump reveals he thinks he can end birthright citizenship through an executive order?

I'm sure you all have seen this by now. I would think if this got to the Supreme Court, birthright citizenship would easily be ruled unconstitutional. In fact, it looks like the SCOTUS already ruled in 1898 by stating that children born in the U.S. are citizens "provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States". Anyone here illegally DOES NOT have permanent domicile status so unless SCOTUS has a later ruling, it would appear children born in the U.S. to illegals are not citizens per the Supreme Court.

The senator who wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard of Michigan, explained the point of it on the Senate floor at the time. "The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,"

The SCOTUS affirmed in US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power. As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.

[jdshock]

I probably shouldn't bite, but it's an interesting topic...

I'm sure you all have seen this by now. I would think if this got to the Supreme Court, birthright citizenship would easily be ruled unconstitutional.

It would not be "easily" ruled upon, no matter the result. There are a lot of 9-0s, but I'd bet dollars to donuts this wouldn't be one, and certainly not a 9-0 your direction.

In fact, it looks like the SCOTUS already ruled in 1898 by stating that children born in the U.S. are citizens "provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States". Anyone here illegally DOES NOT have permanent domicile status so unless SCOTUS has a later ruling, it would appear children born in the U.S. to illegals are not citizens per the Supreme Court.

That's not how legal analysis works. Just because you have a rectangle, it doesn't mean you have a square. Just because the Supreme Court rules explicitly that "children belonging to x, y, and z parents are US citizens" you cannot logically infer that "children belonging to a, b, and c parents are not."

The senator who wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, Jacob Howard of Michigan, explained the point of it on the Senate floor at the time. "The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,"

Tucker has been throwing that quote out, which is where I assume you got it from. It's not all that insightful. The phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" is not as clear as you may think. Because there's no conjunction, we cannot be certain if this is a list or just him speaking about a single type of person who would not be subject to the law. If the latter, it's clearly only about diplomats and their kids, who are not subject to US jurisdiction. Either way, you don't really get to this point if we can all just agree on the meaning of the words as drafted.

The SCOTUS affirmed in US v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power. As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship. Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.

Yeah, I mean it's certainly a debate. Other federal laws specifically don't require the parents to be US citizens. But all of that is probably irrelevant. The actual text of the constitution is:

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 only question is what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I think there is ample case law to suggest the Supreme Court thinks such children are subject to US jurisdiction. If true, all of the rest of it is completely irrelevant. Maybe that's not how it was intended to be drafted, but that's what that sentence means. And you wouldn't really go back and look at intent unless you've got a question about what the sentence means.

[WuDrWu]

jdshock from a legal (and perhaps I'm even asking on a personal level) perspective, is it fair to say that the manner in which that's written, while not especially done poorly (little chance they envisioned the current abuse scenario) is worthy of a debate on a national scale, so as to one, clarify the meaning, intent and perhaps even modify where as a country we want to be in this debate?

FWIW, I think the idea of this birthright has been bastardized. That being said, I think President Trump is wrong in fighting this, at least in this moment (clearly trying to score political points with the timing and double down on what the GOP believes is a winning stance on immigration) and honestly with this fight. There's plenty to fix with immigration. Not saying it's wrong to fix this, but can we fix more pressing issues please? Then perhaps this one wouldn't be so up front. It's another example of LCD thinking. Just because it's atrocious doesn't mean we have to stop everything to fix it. And especially right before the election. I believe the President is wrong here, even though the end goal is correct (my opinion only), and I don't mind saying it.

[jdshock]

Without a doubt it's worthy of a debate, but it's the topic that I think is worthy of a debate, not necessarily the language. I don't know that I think we should be in the business of saying "oof, actually the wording is slightly wrong in that." The second amendment is written poorly. Aside from any of the political stuff about is it good or not good, it's written poorly. It was written more than two centuries ago, and we're stuck here trying to say "well, does take up arms mean for the limited purpose of a state militia" etc. If we are going to say this wording should be adapted since it is unclear, we absolutely need to update the language in a hundred other places throughout the document.

We have a unique constitution with very few amendments. There are pros and cons to that. I think I tend to be more in favor of debating and changing it, but it's important to understand the down sides in doing so. And if we debate this subject, it should be about the actual merits. I don't think we can say "well, let's modify this language because someone 150 years ago clearly meant a slightly different thing. While we must keep their intention, we can change their language." I know I'm not being particularly articulate here, but it seems to me there's nothing wrong with saying we should change something, but if we say we should change it, we maybe shouldn't rely as heavily on what they originally intended (since... by definition, we are changing it).

Just immediate reactions, and my personal opinions. Truthfully, I haven't thought about the subject too much.

Edit to add: I guess implicit in this is the idea that you could have wording that would cause a scenario so bad that the "merits" are just fixing that terrible result.

[shockfan89_]

If we accept the statistic that one in 12 child births is born to someone illegally in our country, and those people are immediately eligible for public assistance as U.S. citizens, I think this could be considered a very pressing issue. Basically 8.33% of our children born in this country may not have a right to services that are being provided to them. You couple this with the increasing movement of the left towards socialism and this becomes a major issue pretty fast.

[shockfan89_]

That's not how legal analysis works. Just because you have a rectangle, it doesn't mean you have a square. Just because the Supreme Court rules explicitly that "children belonging to x, y, and z parents are US citizens" you cannot logically infer that "children belonging to a, b, and c parents are not."

That is exactly how legal analysis works. SCOTUS said in US v Wong Kim Ark that children born in the U.S. are citizens provided that their parents have permanent domicile status. That means children born in the U.S. whose parents don't have permanent domicile status are not citizens. Basically SCOTUS said if a, b, c, and d are true than the children are citizens. In this case, c is obviously false, that means a, b, c, and d are not true.

Tucker has been throwing that quote out, which is where I assume you got it from. It's not all that insightful. The phrase "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" is not as clear as you may think.

Other than the fact the author of the amendment explicitly stated that the 14th amendment does not include children born to foreigners and aliens who are in the United States which is exactly what we are talking about here. He also happened to use the words "of course" which would mean this should be obvious to anyone. I get your point about this being incomplete, but it does appear as common sense that those groups would be excluded. Adding the word "or" would sure make it more clear but you're right we can't infer that. "The Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, OR who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers,"

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof is likely "legally present" which would also underscore the existing SCOTUS ruling of permanent domicile status.

I agree it isn't a 9-0 slam dunk, but this is not something where President Trump is crazy, or racist, or extreme for his view. There is no ruling that the 14th amendment covers children of illegals. At best, it is vague, but again, the MSM is using this to point out that President Trump is a racist even though this has been questioned by many people on both sides of the aisle, including very recently by prominent Democrats in leadership positions.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2015/08/27/supreme-court-mistake-that-opened-the-door-to-birthright-citizenship/

Article's over 3 years old. This is old news and needs to be done away with. It's not the illegal immigrant's fault they are gaming the system. I'd do the exact same thing too if in their place. We are acting like a stupid country and Trump will fix it.


T


...:cool:

[ShockingButTrue]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com//washington-secrets/border-surge-highest-since-2011-each-illegal-immigrant-costs-70-000-7x-deportation-price

Can't verify the accuracy of this article, but if even "kinda/sorta" authentic then isn't it obvious why a taxpayer would support a closed border? Why would there be any other reason? No? Meat-head would know, of course.

[C0|dB|00ded]

https://people.com/politics/carl-rei...-donald-trump/

Carl Reiner wants to live until 2020 for one specific reason: to vote out President Donald Trump.

Ahh Carl, all those years and you learned what? Nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Reiner

"Reiner has described himself as a Jewish atheist.[7] He has said, "I have a very different take on who God is. Man invented God because he needed him. God is us."

T


...:cool:

[Aargh]

There are a lot of things that aren't what they would seem to be. Conservatives don't want Roe overturned. Campaigning on overturning it is more valuable than actually overturning it.

Liberals don't really want Trump out of office. Pence would likely be a stronger candidate in 2020 than Trump.

[Kung Wu]

Dead wrong.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Pence would be a fine intra-term replacement but he'd get eaten alive in a general election by the Liberal machine. Trump is a lock in 2020 if things stay the course. Pence would be 40/60.

From here on out, if the Republicans want to win any more presidential elections post-Trump they're gonna have to be tough as balls. Trump has shown us the path. We can't just sit back and take the high road anymore with the Romney/Pence model. We're gonna need a Trump 2.0 in 2024.


T


...:cool: