Birthright citizenship
 

So if birthright citizenship is invalid does that mean Don the Cons kids with Ivana (non citizen when she gave birth) have to go back to some Eastern European country?
Whoops

I don't know the details, but I would think that Don the Cons kids would be citizens because Don the Con is a citizen, and his wife would also be given citizenship by marrying Don the Con. Are his kids claiming birthright citizenship?

Here's a solid explanation of what the 14th Amendment really means re birthright citizenship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8

Of course, current leftists would disagree, although they agreed with Molyneux's version until they really began to need a larger pool of voters.

Dear Pete, Manny Machado took a better swing at the last pitch of the World Series...he missed too :rotf2:

Anything for Votes I'll give him that ...

So do you have an issues with a sitting President who thinks he has the Power to suspend parts of the constitution with an executive order ?


based on your response I would say no ..

please enlighten us on what This has to with new Voters ?? or are you pushing more right wing conspiracies ..

Wayne, watch the video again and try to pay attention this time :wavey:

I think it is a stunt. Paul Ryan said that Trump, like Obama, cannot change the Constitution with Executive Orders :rotf3:and the text in the 14th Amendment was pretty clear.


No, and you know it :rotf3:


^^^

Hey Scott. Do you have links that are not hour long chalkboard scrapes than Stefan?

From a few years ago

Among them are John Eastman, a former dean at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law; Kris Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state and a former professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri–Kansas City; and Peter Schuck, a professor of law at Yale University.

All three seize on the language in the 14th Amendment that requires not just that someone be born within the United States, but also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

In a New York Times op-ed, Eastman, a founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, argued that ” ‘Subject to the jurisdiction’ means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States meant not ‘owing allegiance to anybody else.’ ”

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of whether children born to people in the country illegally are covered by the 14th Amendment. “It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil,” Eastman argued.

Kobach, who also acts as “of counsel” for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which calls for more restrictive immigration laws, argues that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that only children “born to parents who have allegiance to no foreign power” are subject to the “complete jurisdiction” of the U.S. That language, therefore, does not cover children of parents in the country illegally, he argues.

In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Schuck argues that the founders envisioned citizenship as a “consensual” endeavor, and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a “consensual idea.”

Schuck, Nov. 21, 2014: So what does “subject to the jurisdiction” mean? The Supreme Court long ago decided this phrase confers birthright citizenship only on those who are “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance” at birth. In that case, the court denied citizenship to an Indian born on a reservation but living elsewhere, because he was subject to tribal jurisdiction even though Congress held power over his tribe. (Indians became citizens only in 1924, by statute.) Later, the court granted birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born child of Chinese parents because her parents were here legally.

But most constitutional scholars disagree.
Here's one
Garrett Epps, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and a constitutional law expert, says those who argue against the need for a constitutional amendment are wrong.
“In my opinion, the arguments used to question the natural interpretation of the birthright citizenship rule are at best strained and at worst thoroughly dishonest,” Epps said. “That being said, of course, if Trump became president and appoints Judge Judy and God knows who else, the Supreme Court is perfectly capable of deciding that pi equals three, and nothing I say could stop it.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/tr...t-citizenship/

Pete could probably cut and paste something but I doubt that it would be short and sweet :hihi:

There's a lot of detail necessary to sufficiently explain the issue. Brief synopses, such as PeteF presents (lengthy as they are) don't give enough information for a novice on the issue to be able to convincingly understand it. Stefan, as annoying as he often is, usually does go into the details needed to present a clear picture to us layfolks.

Please enlighten us on where I've mentioned new voters in this thread. And what conspiracy am I pushing here? Your good at simply throwing out labels, but not so good at thinking critically or even understanding what others say.

I may be wrong, but I doubt that he watched it. And if he did, I doubt that he could actually grasp what was being said.

The author of the 14th amendment was Senator Jacob Howard. It was intended to apply to newly-freed slaves. When Senator Howard introduced the amendment on the floor of the US Senate, he is credited with saying this...

...[E]very person born within the limits of the United State, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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 accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person"

I have no clue whether or not Trump has the authority to dictate by executive order, who the amendment applies to. As to whether or not the amendment was intended to apply to children of foreigners? If Senator Howard indeed made this statement, isn't it clear that it was not intended to apply to the children of foreigners?

Please read what the man who wrote the 14th amendment, said about who it applies to, and who it doesn't apply to...

"This 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 accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person"

Now WDMSO, you tell us how you'd interpret this, as intending for the amendment to apply to children of illegals.

Your bold stopped short of the rest of the statement. Had he said "this will now of course include persons born in the United Stated who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong..."

It would better support the argument put forth. As transcribed I'd say it actually reinforces the status quo.

Spence -

Wait a second. Are you saying that you conclude that the liberal position is the correct position? Shocker...

What do you suppose, exactly, the reason was for including the statement that this doesn't apply to persons born who are foreigners? Who was he referring to?

You are hinging your opinion on the lack of the word "or". The "or" doesn't need to be there...he articulated the classes not covered by the amendment, then said everyone else is covered by it.

The "or" does nothing to change the meaning of the quote, but the fact he changed the word "Not" to "Now" definitely alters the meaning.

he's a tricky one, that Spence

Context. It's all about context.

I find it quite comical that Trump would propose to rule by executive order after decrying and demonizing Obama for doing the same, but it's not the first time.
And from the article I posted earlier in which Bill O'Reilly (noted liberal) was arguing with Trump that Congress could not write a bill, never mind Trump penning an executive order, the considered opinion is this.
Unless or until one of those bills were to pass — and the law were challenged in the Supreme Court — we can’t know for certain whether Trump is right. But it is a speculative idea, and certainly not one that has been settled legally.


Keep in mind that he already has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, all he needs now is Judge Jeanine.

You could read the research done by The Congressional Research Office that goes thru the history of this issue in congress.
https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFi...hip-Report.pdf

gorsuch and kavanaugh are exactly like judge jenine, no more intellectually serious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

its comical to see the lovers of the constitution who will shout from the rooftops what part of shall not be infringed. dont you understand

need to take their own advice

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.


for over 150 years this is the standard supported by text history and judicial precedent.. has confirm this claus reaches most US born children of Aliens including illegal aliens

But the Guy in the you tube video knows best

https://youtu.be/YtrFvqXamzw


The Truth About the Pittsburgh Massacre


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3...EGUiBC252GHy3w

more from detbuch Favorite :arbiter of truth described as "one of the alt-right's biggest YouTube stars"

some other views from people much smarter than me which isn't hard

"I think it's kind of a lunatic fringe argument," said Margaret Stock, an attorney at the Cascadia Cross-Border Law Group in Anchorage, Alaska, and a former law professor at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Trump's proposal seems to rely on the work of a small but vocal group of conservative legal scholars who argue the 14th Amendment has long been misread.


"This is about getting the base worked up before the midterms," Hamlin said. "He may not ever even issue the executive order that he floated in the Axios interview."

"You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order," Ryan said Tuesday

Trump may have a lawyer who is telling him the 14th Amendment means something else, but that lawyer is like a unicorn," said Rebecca Hamlin, a professor of legal studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

But but you tube guy

wdmso, I skimmed this thread and you are almost getting me to watch the youtube video if I have time. If you ask my opinion , but you probably don't care, I think Trump is distracting with this birthright subject and yes, probably one lawyer said he could use executive power or whatever. I would rather he concentrate his effort on something else like loopholes in tax laws for millionaires and billionaires rather than birthright loophole. THAT is what is ridiculous

Typo
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Generally agree but this isn’t a distraction, it’s another log on the anti immigrant fire.

I do wonder, are kids of illegal immigrants born here
being given citizenship even a problem? The anchor baby argument doesn’t even hold water when you look at what it takes under the law.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I too would rather he would dispense with all the outrageousness and focus on those kind of things .. but now he has his new 10% tax cut floating around as well , but I feel it will never end. like his never ending self promoting rallies :huh:

The meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is in dispute and has not been determined by SCOTUS regarding illegal aliens. And the current notion of automatic birthright citizenship for aliens has not actually been the standard in the past 150 years. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)—a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship—a majority of the Supreme Court mentioned in passing that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".[51]

The guy in the video is detailing the opinions of "experts" who oppose the notion of automatic birthright citizenship given to children born here to illegal aliens.

If you could point out why specific items he presents in the video are wrong, that would be appreciated. But if you can only present opposing views and claim their validity lies in being more numerous, that is not proof that they are right. Truth is not up to a vote--except by vote of the Supreme arbiter which has not yet decided upon it.

Well, the you tube guy presented a whole lot of actual detail. But I understand. It is more convenient to quote interesting sounding and pointless punch lines than delving into rational discussion about what the you tube guy said.

Yeah, too bad he doesn't act like all the other politicians who don't promote themselves. I feel for how you feel.

This is why you often seem misguided. You rely on sources that are wrong or intentionally misleading or lying. Either your source is merely ignorant or knowingly, for whatever reason, is making Stefan out to be a sort of unacceptable extremist by labeling him as alt-right--probably to discredit his ideas. And you gladly fall for it because it suits what you want to believe.

The Alt-right are a brand of nationalists. Stefan Molyneux is an anarcho-capitalist ("anarcho" being the opposite of nationalist). This is even more interesting because, if I remember correctly, you referenced him in Wikipedia in response to the first video by Stefan that I posted on the forum. And the citation said he was an anarcho capitalist. Maybe you have searched so many opinions on the net, you forget an old one that contradicts a new one. Or maybe you just don't know what the words mean so you can just jumble them together in a contradictory or fallacious package.

Molyneux has been described as a part of the "alt-right" , Metro, NY Magazine, Vanity Fair, and CBS, and has been described as "one of the alt-right's biggest YouTube stars" by Washington Post


keep posting fring people presenting them as experts and truth givers ...clearly you post him consistently because it suits what you want to believe. which is fine both it cuts both ways


Sorry I am not part of Trumps assertion that thirty-three percent of the people in this country believe the fake news is in fact, and I hate to say this, in fact the enemy of the people."

You rely on sources that are wrong or intentionally misleading or lying. says who? sorry my horse can't complete with the high horse you ride on

Molyneux has been described as a part of the "alt-right" , Metro, NY Magazine, Vanity Fair, and CBS, and has been described as "one of the alt-right's biggest YouTube stars" by Washington Post


keep posting fring people presenting them as experts and truth givers ...clearly you post him consistently because it suits what you want to believe. which is fine both it cuts both ways


Sorry I am not part of the of what Trumps assertion that thirty-three percent of the people in this country believe the fake news is in fact, and I hate to say this, in fact the enemy of the people." but you maybe

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

what did Mother Jones have to say about him? :rotf2:

Molyneux is alt- right.
His views thankfully are held by a few on the fringe and have no basis in reality.
Have you defoo’d your family yet?
A glance at Stefan Molyneux’s subscriber count (650,000+) on YouTube suggests that he is a charismatic, persuasive and influential individual. A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. Molyneux has been delivering “race realist” propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority. Molyneux puts considerable effort into cloaking the practical implications of these beliefs across his media platforms.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

cutting and pasting from the souther poverty law center is alt-dumb

Here are some Molyneux quotes from Southern Poverty Law Center
In his own words
“I don’t view humanity as a single species...”
—Podcast FDR2768, “Collective Guilt for Fun and Profit”, Saturday call-in show, August 9, 2014

“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the #^&#^&#^&#^& up!”
—Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014

"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane."
—YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015

“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.”
—YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015

“...white people will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but when they finally get that they’re just being taken advantage of...you will see a backlash, and that backlash will be quick, decisive, and brutal.”
—YouTube video, The Death of Germany | European Migrant Crisis, September 16, 2015

“...the Germans were in danger of being taken over by what they perceived as Jewish-led Communism. And Jewish-led Communism had wiped out tens of millions of white Christians in Russia and they were afraid of the same thing. And there was this wild overreaction and all this kind of stuff.”
—Stefan Molyneux describes the Holocaust in YouTube video, Migratory Patterns of Predatory Immigrants, March 20, 2016

“...skills and abilities have not been distributed evenly by mother nature between various ethnicities and what that means is that when the #^&#^&#^&#^& hits the wall it hits some ethnicities a lot harder than others and then you get endless screams of “racism”...this is one fundamental reason why America is having trouble solving these problems is that everybody knows that if you cut spending which community is it going to be hit the hardest? Hint: it’s not Korean…if you cut social spending in America it’s going to hit the black community the hardest ...the black and Hispanic communities don’t end up acting the same as the white population or the Asian population...the media are compliant and willing to scream “racist” at anyone who points out basic fact-based differences between ethnicities…[and] you can’t deal with the situation until Obama’s out or until people understand that ethnicities in America and all around the world tend to act differently [collectively]...collectively ethnicities tend to act differently, they tend to have different incomes, they tend to have different rates of marital stability, they tend to have different rates of criminality...”
—YouTube video, The Impending Collapse of Western Civilization, November 15, 2015

“One of the biggest questions in America is ethnic crime rates...and y’know the [Asians] are the model minority…[while] the American blacks and blacks around the world have truly shockingly high levels of criminality and the general explanation is y’know slavery plus racism plus poverty, whatever it is which creates this unholy brew...but as far as I understand it there are significant contributions that your field can make to help people untangle [why] there are such differences in ethnic positive and negative behaviours in society...American blacks have roughly a standard IQ below whites... ”
—YouTube video, Genetics and Crime: Interview with Kevin M. Beaver, May 28, 2016

“If we could just get people to be nice to their babies for five years straight, that would be it for war, drug abuse, addiction, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases. Almost all would be completely eliminated, because they all arise from dysfunctional early childhood experiences, which are all run by women.”
—Speech at International Conference on Men’s Issues, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, June 26 - 28, 2014

“... the fomenting of anti-white hatred is extremely strong and very toxic and very dangerous, [and] I can’t help but think, Jared, that if I lived in a society of [only] white peoplethen the giant fly swatter of ‘shut up whitey, you’re racist’ could never be used against me. We could actually have debates about ideas rather than ethnicity, we could actually have debates where reason and argument could win, and of course it’s not like all white people are rational, of course not, right? But the reality is that the giant thermonuclear strike of ‘you’re a racist’ could not be brought to bear in the debate or in the discussion, and, I gotta tell ya, that’s kinda tempting in a lot of waysbecause if other people are unwilling to drop the race card I’m not sure I wanna to play the game anymore…”
—YouTube video, An Honest Conversation about Race: Interview with Jared Taylor, July 8, 2016

“...people have this idea that human groups somehow live in harmony together...but the sum total of human history is endless warfare between competing groups, two subspecies don’t inhabit the same geographical area for long, one will always displace the other, and this idea [diversity], it’s a complete naive reading of history…”
—YouTube video, The Death of Canada. Prepare Yourself Accordingly, July 8, 2017

A problem you ask?
Come on, think about it and use some common sense if you have any. Obviously it’s a problem if even some of them are dependent on government aid at some point in their lives and that money could be used to aid actual citizens and taxpayers born of LEGAL immigrant parents for instance homeless veterans for one, or maybe financial aid for your kids to go to college. But you might prefer footing the bill for illegal immigrants I suppose? That is dividing the country so maybe get your priorities straight

Trump is trying to do his job best he can and better the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device