Donald Trump 2018

[Grandioso 2,592]

In the above-scenario, the baby becomes a sovereign citizen and grows up to become a really fucking annoying tax cheat. 

[Chad Fuck 17,777]

8 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Sorry I meant under Trump's proposed system.

Has Trump proposed anything other than "maybe I'll get rid of this by EO"?  I haven't seen a plan of any sort.  Just the typical Trump bluster without backing.

I'll hang up and listen.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 This citizenship bullshit is not the conversation that should be going on right now.  

It’s been injected to distract. 

[Huckleberry 33,096]

Just stop already, Hugo. You have been wrong more times than any of us can count and your strategy suggestions have been incredibly consistently terrible.

What the Democrats should actually do if they're smart is spend an entire week blasting the citizenship statement from Trump into Latino neighborhoods and telling them that this might be the last chance they EVER have to vote if they don't vote against Republicans.

Or they can do like you and trust Jeff Flake to do the right thing.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Huckleberry
a little nicer

[BrazilHorn 6,633]

9 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

You are trying to legitimize a racist policy that solves a problem that isn't an issue. It is news cycle fodder as you say and only reinforces Trump's racist base. By trying to legitimize this policy, you are enabling racist.  

I guess I don't see as racist per se as to me the policy was written long before the current ease of global travel/birth tourism etc. I think it should be adjusted to reflect 2018. I can see how it is perceived as racist however given that the majority of folks having "anchor" babies are non-white. Like I said above, I don't care if they change and it is nothing more than political theater.

[Huckleberry 33,096]

You are considering the more global society exactly backwards.

Jus soli makes more sense in a global society, not less. Unless you're a big fan of millions of people in a country being stateless, not being full citizens with full rights, getting angry, getting radicalized, and becoming violent. Because that's what would happen.

[wildcat09 29,388]

19 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

The number of Constitutional scholars that show up when racism asks them to is amazing.  

 

I find the whole thing dumb.  EOs are for how the executive branch carries out something.  Citizenship is a state of being here.  What is the executive not going to do?  Not give these people passports?  Issue SSNs?  That's just an annoyance, not a change in the citizenship of the people.   

 

An EO can't change the constitution.  An EO can't change a statute  (8 USC 1401 "The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;").  

 

I would say a properly teed up suit in order of likelihood: (1) denies cert and never reaches SCOTUS; (2) goes 8-1/9-0 against Trump; (3) goes 5-4 along party lines with Roberts going liberal; (4) - (49) other; (50) Trump wins.

You're forgetting the fact that the Supreme Court has a long history of blatantly ignoring the 14th Amendment when the rights of racial minorities are at stake.

 

[MidTexHorn 822]

It's not an inherently racist policy proposal, it's racist in its application and the reason it's being proposed by Trump. Nothing wrong with having rational limits and rules for immigration. But when it's blatantly obvious that Trump is using this issue as a distraction and a dog whistle to the racists who support him, then it's pretty clear what's happening here.

[yoladu 4,094]

21 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

Not sure members of an established colony seeking independence is analogous to non-citizens coming to a country and having a baby in order to anchor themselves to the child's automatic citizenship to facilitate their own citizenship.

My comment on UK being a country that requires a parent be a citizen I don't think has anything to do with the Revolutionary War.

France, Germany, Australia, Ireland and others don't convey citizenship to children born to non-citizens/non-permanent residents automatically.

Just saying that the US wouldn't be only major country to add some "hair" to birth-based citizenship to foreign parents.

Antonin Scalia is rolling over in his grave. A few quotes from Scalia:

"If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans should be governed the way Europeans are.... What reason is there to believe that other dispositions of a foreign country are so obviously suitable to the morals and manners of our people that they can be judicially imposed through constitutional adjudication? Is it really an appropriate function of judges to say which are and which are not?"

"American law-the law made by the people's democratically elected representatives-does not recognize a category of activity that is so universally disapproved by other nations that it is automatically unlawful here."'

[Biff Tannen 45,742]

24 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

 

We just gonna let this one slide by while we bicker about hypothetical EOs that aren't gonna happen?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,493]

NFGDM


 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,493]

Edit:  Biff Tannen beat me to it by about 10 seconds.

What an asshole Trump is. 

[ChickenSandwich 9,853]

There on average 250,000 children born to two undocumented parents each year.  That is an additional 25% of all legal immigration (1 million).

The US should grant citizenship to children born to legal US immigrants and asylum seekers - this is what Germany should do.  The vast majority of us are here because our great relatives immigrated legally.  Legal immigration when done in a controlled and safe manor is undoubtedly a huge positive for the country.

Removing Jus Soli  will force immigration to go away from illegal and towards legal.  The benefit from Legal entry will far outweigh that of illegal.  That is not the case today, why wait in line when they can't enforce their own laws to prevent you from breaking them?

The need for border enforcement would be cut in half when the main incentive for illegal entry is removed.  

If citizenship based on blood is bad, then why the outcry when Trump mentioned shifting to a merit based system instead of a familial one (ie blood/chain migration)?  Does it only matter when it suits the argument?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/26/number-of-babies-born-to-unauthorized-immigrants-in-u-s-continues-to-decline/

None of the European countries have this policy.  None of the Nordic countries have this policy.

**That said, you should never be able to re-write the constitution with an EO.  It was wrong with the Dreamers and it would be wrong of Trump.  It is the job of congress to settle these issues and set the law.  Amend the constitution in a legal way and all Americans and potential legal immigrants will benefit.  The status quo is unsustainable.  If the Caravan of 7K gets exactly what it wants, what's left of these countries wont be far behind.  We can not take the entire central american population.  Its not a sustainable policy.  

The laws need to change one way or the other.  Simply ignoring them or selectively enforcing them is dangerous.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

14 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Just stop already, Hugo. You have been wrong more times than any of us can count and your strategy suggestions have been incredibly consistently terrible.

What the Democrats should actually do if they're smart is spend an entire week blasting the citizenship statement from Trump into Latino neighborhoods and telling them that this might be the last chance they EVER have to vote if they don't vote against Republicans.

Or they can do like you and trust Jeff Flake to do the right thing.

Your strategy is sound but that’s not what I meant when I said this was injected to distract.  

And lol at me having a track record of being consistently wrong as if you’re keeping track. 

At least I own my mistakes. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz
Your

[SimonBolivar 10,959]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

We just gonna let this one slide by while we bicker about hypothetical EOs that aren't gonna happen?

I mean it's gotten to the point where that didn't even register with me. I felt no emotion reading that tweet set.

[BrazilHorn 6,633]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

You are considering the more global society exactly backwards.

Jus soli makes more sense in a global society, not less. Unless you're a big fan of millions of people in a country being stateless, not being full citizens with full rights, getting angry, getting radicalized, and becoming violent. Because that's what would happen.

But aren't their parents citizen of a country? Or is assertion that in the course of coming to US and having a child that they have renounced their prior citizenship?

Perhaps there should be different Jus soli rules based on the parent's situation. If you are truly a refugee (say from Syria eg) you are treated differently than someone coming to a birth hotel from China.

It is complicated, but I think there is a way to improve current process.

I am enjoying back and forth here. Like I mentioned above I am not a Trump fan/supporter and I do see him positioning this as nothing more than noise.

I do believe however there is an opportunity to improve this current part of the 14th amendment.  Challenge is how to do it while not further disenfranchising those truly in need/punishing children etc

[bad_teammate 13,224]

*whispering to Hugo*

"Call him Cuckleberry."

[Huckleberry 33,096]

6 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

But aren't their parents citizen of a country? Or is assertion that in the course of coming to US and having a child that they have renounced their prior citizenship?

Perhaps there should be different Jus soli rules based on the parent's situation. If you are truly a refugee (say from Syria eg) you are treated differently than someone coming to a birth hotel from China.

It is complicated, but I think there is a way to improve current process.

I am enjoying back and forth here. Like I mentioned above I am not a Trump fan/supporter and I do see him positioning this as nothing more than noise.

I do believe however there is an opportunity to improve this current part of the 14th amendment.  Challenge is how to do it while not further disenfranchising those truly in need/punishing children etc

The problem is that while the world is growing more global, the laws of the nations vary greatly.

China, for example, revokes citizenship if you become a citizen of another nation. So if a Chinese couple illegally emigrates to the United States, has a child before they become naturalized US citizens, then becomes US citizens shortly thereafter there is a good chance that the child will not be a citizen of either nation under some of the proposed plans discussed here today. China would be unlikely to recognize that child as a Chinese citizen and the child would have been born here to non-citizen parents.

Multiply this by the millions of occurrences that would continue to take place no matter what the law is (the United States is still an attractive destination for those living under oppressive regimes) and you end up with millions of stateless people living in your country. And let's not pretend for even a moment that an easy path to citizenship would be opened up for those people. The entire reason that this discussion is happening is because one half of the nation wants fewer people to be able to gain citizenship here.

[SimonBolivar 10,959]

1 minute ago, ChickenSandwich said:

There on average 250,000 children born to two undocumented parents each year.  That is an additional 25% of all legal immigration (1 million).

The US should grant citizenship to children born to legal US immigrants and asylum seekers - this is what Germany should do.  The vast majority of us are here because our great relatives immigrated legally.  Legal immigration when done in a controlled and safe manor is undoubtedly a huge positive for the country.

Removing Jus Soli  will force immigration to go away from illegal and towards legal.  The benefit from Legal entry will far outweigh that of illegal.  That is not the case today, why wait in line when they can't enforce their own laws to prevent you from breaking them?

The need for border enforcement would be cut in half when the main incentive for illegal entry is removed.  

If citizenship based on blood is bad, then why the outcry when Trump mentioned shifting to a merit based system instead of a familial one (ie blood/chain migration)?  Does it only matter when it suits the argument?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/26/number-of-babies-born-to-unauthorized-immigrants-in-u-s-continues-to-decline/

None of the European countries have this policy.  None of the Nordic countries have this policy.

**That said, you should never be able to re-write the constitution with an EO.  It was wrong with the Dreamers and it would be wrong of Trump.  It is the job of congress to settle these issues and set the law.  Amend the constitution in a legal way and all Americans and potential legal immigrants will benefit.  The status quo is unsustainable.  If the Caravan of 7K gets exactly what it wants, what's left of these countries wont be far behind.  We can not take the entire central american population.  Its not a sustainable policy.  

The laws need to change one way or the other.  Simply ignoring them or selectively enforcing them is dangerous.  

Is the legal option for immigration readily available? We've all heard the horror stories about the asylum seekers who are set up in camps in Mexico because we don't have the ability and or want to handle their claims. I don't see the immigration situation improving until the Central American countries are stable or empty. I'd still rather be an undocumented immigrant making $7.50/hr in Garden City, Kansas than being a shopkeeper in Tegucigalpa making $1/hr and paying extortion partners 50% of that while murders are happening on our calle daily.

[jimmyjazz 46,131]

42 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

II don't support banning outright but do believe that allowing citizenship to convey to a child simply due to being born in US doesn't make sense in today's easily globally connected world.

Well hell, if we're going to start examining the Constitutional amendments in the light of "what makes sense NOW", then bring it on!

[Huckleberry 33,096]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*whispering to Hugo*

"Call him Cuckleberry."

It's funny that you think name-calling bothers people. Your only effective moments in this forum are when you argue ideas but for some reason you can't manage to stay on task.

[BrazilHorn 6,633]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well hell, if we're going to start examining the Constitutional amendments in the light of "what makes sense NOW", then bring it on!

Fair point, and certainly opens Pandora's box. However some things just were never envisioned by founding fathers and the limited technology etc they had at time. I am by no means a constitutional scholar and I do not have answers for immigration reform. I do believe however there is an opportunity to improve and in many cases streamline current processes.

 

[Brisketexan 105,337]

29 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

Has Trump proposed anything other than "maybe I'll get rid of this by EO"?  I haven't seen a plan of any sort.  Just the typical Trump bluster without backing.

I'll hang up and listen.

No, he hasn't.  But fuck him anyway.

15 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

There on average 250,000 children born to two undocumented parents each year.  That is an additional 25% of all legal immigration (1 million).

The US should grant citizenship to children born to legal US immigrants and asylum seekers - this is what Germany should do.  The vast majority of us are here because our great relatives immigrated legally.  Legal immigration when done in a controlled and safe manor is undoubtedly a huge positive for the country.

Removing Jus Soli  will force immigration to go away from illegal and towards legal.  The benefit from Legal entry will far outweigh that of illegal.  That is not the case today, why wait in line when they can't enforce their own laws to prevent you from breaking them?

The need for border enforcement would be cut in half when the main incentive for illegal entry is removed.  

If citizenship based on blood is bad, then why the outcry when Trump mentioned shifting to a merit based system instead of a familial one (ie blood/chain migration)?  Does it only matter when it suits the argument?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/26/number-of-babies-born-to-unauthorized-immigrants-in-u-s-continues-to-decline/

None of the European countries have this policy.  None of the Nordic countries have this policy.

**That said, you should never be able to re-write the constitution with an EO.  It was wrong with the Dreamers and it would be wrong of Trump.  It is the job of congress to settle these issues and set the law.  Amend the constitution in a legal way and all Americans and potential legal immigrants will benefit.  The status quo is unsustainable.  If the Caravan of 7K gets exactly what it wants, what's left of these countries wont be far behind.  We can not take the entire central american population.  Its not a sustainable policy.  

The laws need to change one way or the other.  Simply ignoring them or selectively enforcing them is dangerous.  

Interesting policy argument.

I have also heard some interesting policy arguments for sharply limiting the individual right to own a firearm, beyond what would be permissible under the 2nd Amendment

I'll tell you what I tell them: groovy.  There's a process for amending the Constitution, go ahead and do that.  If the proper amount of voters and states choose to amend the Constitution to work as you propose, nifty.  If not, tough shit.

 

Oh, and a friend of mine had her son prematurely, while on vacation in Mexico.  He was, by virtue of their laws, a Mexican citizen upon birth (he later gave it up).  It's really not an uncommon process at all, and birthright citizenship is of course NOT the main incentive for illegal immigration.  The main incentive is what it has always been, and is the same as what it is all over the world -- better economic opportunity (jobs), and more stable environs (get away from violence and chaos).  I know that doesn't fit your narrative, but facts and logic rarely do.

[David Dennison 18,946]

19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

There on average 250,000 children born to two undocumented parents each year.  That is an additional 25% of all legal immigration (1 million).

The US should grant citizenship to children born to legal US immigrants and asylum seekers - this is what Germany should do.  The vast majority of us are here because our great relatives immigrated legally.  Legal immigration when done in a controlled and safe manor is undoubtedly a huge positive for the country.

Removing Jus Soli  will force immigration to go away from illegal and towards legal.  The benefit from Legal entry will far outweigh that of illegal.  That is not the case today, why wait in line when they can't enforce their own laws to prevent you from breaking them?

The need for border enforcement would be cut in half when the main incentive for illegal entry is removed.  

If citizenship based on blood is bad, then why the outcry when Trump mentioned shifting to a merit based system instead of a familial one (ie blood/chain migration)?  Does it only matter when it suits the argument?

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/26/number-of-babies-born-to-unauthorized-immigrants-in-u-s-continues-to-decline/

None of the European countries have this policy.  None of the Nordic countries have this policy.

**That said, you should never be able to re-write the constitution with an EO.  It was wrong with the Dreamers and it would be wrong of Trump.  It is the job of congress to settle these issues and set the law.  Amend the constitution in a legal way and all Americans and potential legal immigrants will benefit.  The status quo is unsustainable.  If the Caravan of 7K gets exactly what it wants, what's left of these countries wont be far behind.  We can not take the entire central american population.  Its not a sustainable policy.  

The laws need to change one way or the other.  Simply ignoring them or selectively enforcing them is dangerous.  

Birthright citizenship in the United States is not a policy. It is not a law. It is a right enumerated in the Constitution.

[jimmyjazz 46,131]

3 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

Fair point, and certainly opens Pandora's box. However some things just were never envisioned by founding fathers and the limited technology etc they had at time.

I couldn't agree more.  Say, for instance, "semi-automatic weapons".

[Brisketexan 105,337]

9 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Is the legal option for immigration readily available? We've all heard the horror stories about the asylum seekers who are set up in camps in Mexico because we don't have the ability and or want to handle their claims. I don't see the immigration situation improving until the Central American countries are stable or empty. I'd still rather be an undocumented immigrant making $7.50/hr in Garden City, Kansas than being a shopkeeper in Tegucigalpa making $1/hr and paying extortion partners 50% of that while murders are happening on our calle daily.

AND....if we wanted the most bang for our buck, you know how we could most easily reduce the flows of Hondurans coming here?  It ain't by building a wall, or amending our Constitution.  It would be by fostering stability and prosperity in Honduras, including supporting appropriate governance, supporting manufacturing and jobs initiatives, and spending some additional foreign aid dollars.  It seems smarter to spend $500 million than $20 billion - along with the great benefit of helping real people and stabilizing our hemisphere - but hey, I'm no math major.

If the goal is "fewer Hondurans coming here/having babies here," that's the easiest and most efficient path.  

Kind of like how if your goal is to reduce abortions, you should probably be in favor of real sex education and readily available birth control.  

But, you know.  Common sense and all that.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Brisketexan

[wildcat09 29,388]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's funny that you think name-calling bothers people. Your only effective moments in this forum are when you argue ideas but for some reason you can't manage to stay on task.

C’mon, Cuckleberry was funny.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It's funny that you think name-calling bothers people. Your only effective moments in this forum are when you argue ideas but for some reason you can't manage to stay on task.

It was a joke about the fact that you two were arguing, like someone standing to the side egging it on for amusement.

It was funny, too. lol

[jimmyjazz 46,131]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

C’mon, Cuckleberry was funny.

Yeah, and now I have this earworm going on:

 

[Huckleberry 33,096]

See but it wasn't funny this time because he and I aren't actually arguing like you and I argue sometimes. We're trying to have a substantive discussion in this forum so it might seem weird and strange, but it's not really an argument.

I suppose I'm being too uptight about it but when somebody actually wants to talk policy, logic, and consequences I'd prefer to ride it out as long as I can.

[triplehorn 2,664]

If Trump could just sharpie-in a Constitutional amendment, the first order of business should be to target Article 2, Section 1 and the 25th Amendment...to alter the presidential line of succession.  

If the midterms were a game of Candyland, Dems winning the House would be like landing on the Rainbow Trail and sliding right past the Peppermint Forest, Gumdrop Mountains, and Lord Licorice and the Licorice Castle.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Cuckleberry is right.  We weren’t arguing.  

[bad_teammate 13,224]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

See but it wasn't funny this time because he and I aren't actually arguing like you and I argue sometimes.

 

~*~ ten minutes earlier ~*~

Quote

Just stop already, Hugo. You have been wrong more times than any of us can count and your strategy suggestions have been incredibly consistently terrible.

lol

[DigglerontheHoof 21,245]

tone!

[Huckleberry 33,096]

Do you really think that's on the same level as when you were screaming at everyone that Sabrina Erdely's story in Rolling Stone should be believed without hesitation and if someone didn't believe it then they were misogynistic rape enablers? Seems to me like the tone was a bit different here, but that may just be me.

But Hugo's right that the focus should be elsewhere. At least in this thread.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Huckleberry

[bad_teammate 13,224]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Do you really think that's on the same level as when you were screaming at everyone that Sabrina Erdely's story in Rolling Stone should be believed without hesitation and if someone didn't believe it then they were misogynistic rape enablers? Seems to me like the tone was a bit different here, but that may just be me.

[WhatTheBuck 28,798]

1 hour ago, BrazilHorn said:

I guess I don't see as racist per se as to me the policy was written long before the current ease of global travel/birth tourism etc. I think it should be adjusted to reflect 2018. I can see how it is perceived as racist however given that the majority of folks having "anchor" babies are non-white. Like I said above, I don't care if they change and it is nothing more than political theater.

Where can I go to see the stats on anchor babies? How many are born every year, where do their parents come from, when and how did they get here? I'd like to know. 

[crash_davis 23,115]

wait, so the 2nd amendment is sacred but the 14th isn't?  

[TornACL 7,722]

2 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 

 

Blaring Rush Limbaugh and wanted to talk about Trump the minute I got in the car. Talked about black people all looking alike and “I don’t know if you’re a big Facebook person but I was reading this argument...” I couldn’t have made this person up better for the CR.

Anyone wanna guess age/race/sex?

 

I hope you reported this person to Uber and just didn't leave him 0 stars.

I had one try a similar tactic in Vegas. As soon as I got in the car, he turned on some crackpot right wing radio program and asked me if I ever listed to the guy. I told him "Turn that fucking shit off right now." and we sat the rest of the drive in glorious awkward silence. I didn't report the guy because he complied with my wishes...no one should have to be subjected to political bullshit, and obviously the racist shit makes it even 1000x worse.

[shnsajax 3,591]

6 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

wait, so the 2nd amendment is sacred but the 14th isn't?  

Neither is the 1st

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

I would say literally no one genuinely believes the argument.

 

Wait a minute.  Noted Constitutional scholar Donald Trump just realized we've been misreading the 14th Amendment for 150 years.  I, with my extensive Constitutional law training that I got from 3 minutes of wikipedia, am forced to agree.  Also, it feels nice to have saved $150,000 on law school.

[jimmyjazz 46,131]

4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I would say literally no one genuinely believes the argument.

 

Wait a minute.  Noted Constitutional scholar Donald Trump just realized we've been misreading the 14th Amendment for 150 years.  I, with my extensive Constitutional law training that I got from 3 minutes of wikipedia, am forced to agree.  Also, it feels nice to have saved $150,000 on law school.

Wait, he was advised by council councel counsel.

[mchookem 16,386]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

 

sickening

there is literally no limit to his grossness

[sidis 9,832]

56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It would be by fostering stability and prosperity in Honduras, including supporting appropriate governance

 

[wildcat09 29,388]

4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I would say literally no one genuinely believes the argument.

 

Wait a minute.  Noted Constitutional scholar Donald Trump just realized we've been misreading the 14th Amendment for 150 years.  I, with my extensive Constitutional law training that I got from 3 minutes of wikipedia, am forced to agree.  Also, it feels nice to have saved $150,000 on law school.

In absolute sincerity, there's probably at least 10 million Americans who do.

[NBMisha 224]

2 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

 

it’s

 

Brutally spot on.   Back into my hole.

[retread 2,951]

3 minutes ago, mchookem said:

sickening

there is literally no limit to his grossness

Thousands of protesters now in Pittsburgh. What a grotesque scene of the Addams Family of American politics forcing themselves on these people.

[happyfunball 481]

Has even Kanye abandoned Trump?!!!

 

[4th&Five 41,590]

Shocking 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

lol But I was asked just two days ago on this very board if I had considered that Kayne might just be the tip of the iceberg and the first window into all these black men secretly in love with Trump.

Where ya at now with your “As goes Kayne, so goes the black man” racist ass hypothesis?