Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Birthright citizenship

In the news because Trump floated the idea of issuing an executive order rescinding the policy. He created a national discussion about the constitutionality of the policy and of his proposed executive order. Instead of just doing it. Obviously Trump wanted as many people talking about this and going on record as possible.

I didn't read any of them seriously, just skimmed them, because I don't care what anyone else thinks, I can imagine the things that they say, I'm not in the mood for another person's lecture on the US Constitution, most other opinions are superficial and suck, and I feel like I'm being played.

* Following Trump, Lindsey Graham wants to end birthright citizenship. The State.  (Article is ridiculously written and comments are even worse)

* Five reasons Obama is to blame for Trump believing he can end birthright citizenship unilaterally. PJ Media.  Lists the crap Obama pulled that pissed off conservatives. It's all review. Comments are sensible with comprehension of US Constitution.

* Revoking birthright citizenship would enforce the Constitiution. New York Post. Sensibly sympathetic along predictable lines.

* Birthright Citizenship: What you need to know. Daily Caller. Nothing new, you already know it all including the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case concerned with offspring of legal parents that do not bear on the issue today of illegal parents. Comments are what you can expect.

* Birthright citizenship and its allies. American Greatness. Sympathetic to Trump, gives a global and historic sweep. Only one comment, found the article useful.

* Trump, the 14th Amendment, the caravan, and the Constitution, PJ Media. Reviews the history of the 14th Amendment.
What Trump has done, in his belligerent way, is to suddenly refocus the debate, just as the caravan approaches and the midterms loom. No doubt, his executive order, should it be forthcoming, will be quickly found unconstitutional by a federal judge, who will promptly issue a nationwide injunction against its enforcement. Such an order will be appealed to the Supreme Court for expedited argument and decision, and very likely (as with the "Muslim ban") will be upheld.
Knowledgable commenters for the most part.
Wotan420  Attila_the_hun • 12 hours ago
All it takes is Trump throwing this comment out there, he knows damn well he isn't going to get rid of this. But all he has to do is comment on a weekend show nobody has ever heard of... and somehow it dominates the entire media cycle for days. The media is so obsessed with BAD ORANGE MAN it really is pathetic. 
The art of the troll, got to love President Trump. 
Harry Reid in 1993: No sane country would give citizenship to people born from illegal aliens. Daily Wire.  Bleh. Highlights Democrat hypocrisy flexibility. Comments are bleh.

* Paul Ryan shoots down Trump's birthright citizenship plans. Washington Times. Nobody cares what Paul Ryan thinks. And I mean nobody. He sounds like a baby. Maybe you'll like this article. Comments are funny.

5 comments:

Leland said...

I'm supportive of the idea, but this particular issue isn't high on my list. I certainly support the idea of testing the bounds of the law, so that we can get a better law.

I don't think this was the right time to announce. Maybe it has something to do with the caravan, but otherwise the topic is very controversial. More to the point, the Trump base is energized (I can't say Republican/GOP, because I'm not sure many feel that way anymore or the ones that do feel like a Republican/GOP probably aren't energized), so I don't think this would energize them more. But it could energize the opposition.

It's sort of like Democrat talk of impeachment. Sure it is what they want to do, and their followers believe it will happen. But every time they mention it, it is just a reminder to go out and vote for the GOP just to prevent it.

Back to the primary topic; I just spent a few weeks in the UK and visited France. For a one-day hop from London to France; I spent 3 hours going through immigration. They don't just let anyone in either way despite UK still being a part of the EU at the moment. It is not like going from California to Texas, although I'd support Texas checking the intentions of any Californian entering the state. I'm not going to tolerate anyone saying how evil the US is for wanting the same rights as other countries.

edutcher said...

I won.

ampersand said...

Ending birthright citizenship should have been done when inexpensive jet travel came along.
Back during the W years when Hugo Chavez came to power, Venezuelan women with the means flew to Miami to have their babies, just for the citizenship. Mexican women were routinely crossing the border to have their babies at US hospitals, with the taxpayers handed the bills for the instant medicaid.

The congress should fix this but they're venal and cowardly and nothing will be done.

Here's a map of countries that have birthright. With the exception of Canada we are associated with a host of shitholes. The globalist loudmouths are quick to condemn the US when we aren't aligned with the industrial first world on issues like healthcare, gun rights or the death penalty but they'll shut their traps about this.

ampersand said...

My money is on Paul Ryan either being the next head of the US Chamber of Commerce or their chief lobbyist.
( I almost typed US Chamber of Congress)

Amartel said...

Birthright citizenship is one of those things that the establishment just assumed was established, no need to explain; it just is. Suck it, normie, you're fungible. Watch and learn. Now aghast to find out that things that are "established" are not as established as they thought. Including the establishment. Some of these creeps might actually have to get a real job! The 14th Amendment was written to redress issues related to former slaves after the Civil War, not open up citizenship to anyone who just happens, coincidentally, (oopsie), to be born here. A stupid stupid argument that everyone has just accepted for years because it was never challenged.