Trump called birthright citizenship "ridiculous" and said that "it has to end."

[fortyofforty]

3 hours ago, ItnStln said:

Such a prick!

Apparently not simple enough for you.  One Federal judge stymied President Trump's attempt to limit immigration from several countries in which the infrastructure had broken down.  One.  But you can't handle the truth.  Idiotic personal attacks aside, the truth is what it is.  You must work for the State Department, as wedded to it as you appear to be.  Typical bureaucrat.  Useless and full of ****.

[ItnStln]

6 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Idiotic personal attacks aside, the truth is what it is.

 

The only one making personal attacks here is you, with this post:

4 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Simple enough for you?

 

And this post:

6 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Apparently not simple enough for you.

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by ItnStln

[fortyofforty]

Can't argue facts, so just name-calls.  How Democrat of you.

[NPTim]

14 hours ago, Dric902 said:

The Japanese declared war that morning and attacked with a national military force

you cannot make this an invasion under military force law.

 

.

You bet I can. There has been violence on the part of that mob. They are burning OUR flag and demanding entry. You want them, sponsor as many as you can afford and get like minded individuals to do the same. You know what, **** it. No, you can’t shelter these criminals either. They are invading and you will never convince me otherwise. We will just agree to disagree on this.

[Dric902]

51 minutes ago, NPTim said:

You bet I can. There has been violence on the part of that mob. They are burning OUR flag and demanding entry. You want them, sponsor as many as you can afford and get like minded individuals to do the same. You know what, **** it. No, you can’t shelter these criminals either. They are invading and you will never convince me otherwise. We will just agree to disagree on this.

I don’t want them here anymore than you do. But there are things you can do, and things you can’t do.

getting all bent out of shape arguing about the things you can’t do is a waste of time. It doesn’t do anything but make people mad while accomplishing nothing.

 

.

[steve4102]

14 hours ago, ItnStln said:

He posts the same anti-Trump/pro-illegal rhetoric at Glock Talk. It isn't surprising to see it posted here as well.

Ignore is your friend here.

 

He is not worth the time it takes to read his dribble, let alone reply to it. 

[steve4102]

As for a "Federal Judge" overruling the Constitutional Authority of the President of the Untied States, this too will come to an end.

I believe it was Justice Thomas that said a few months ago, "Activists Judges can not be allowed to circumvent the Constitutional Authority of the President, at some point we will have to get involved and put a stop to this", or something to that affect.   

I believe that time has come.

1) President Trump will issue an EO on this Birthright nonsense.

2) It will quickly be shot down by an Activist Judge, prolly from Hawaii.  The ruling has already been written even before the EO has.

3) This ruling will be fast tracked to the Supreme Court where,  The Court will rule in favor of the President's EO and they will smack down this and any further attempt by activists judges to legislate from the bench, rendering any future rulings by activist judges none enforceable and useless. 

The President and the Supreme Court will kill two birds with one EO.

[Dric902]

Presidential EO can’t change the Constitution or interpret an amendment.

or Obama would have reinterpreted the 2nd and most of the 1st when he controlled congress from 2008-2010

 

but you can ignore me, I’m not worth reading. But you’re still wrong

 

.

[steve4102]

As already posted, the SC has ruled on this, it is a done deal.

 

That and the SC not only applies  the written word when making their ruling, they also go way back and use the "Intent" of the Amendment.  In this case, it is clear that the original intent was to grant citizenship to slaves and their families.

The drafters of the 14 even stated that it is NOT intended to grant citizenship to those in the country illegally.

This will be a slam dunk for the President and the Rule of Law.

Edited November 6, 2018 by steve4102

[Dric902]

Maybe the drafters should have written it into the amendment rather than stating it, then it would have meant something.

 

Let’s see

 

.

Edited November 6, 2018 by Dric902

[Al Czervik]

9 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Presidential EO can’t change the Constitution or interpret an amendment.

or Obama would have reinterpreted the 2nd and most of the 1st when he controlled congress from 2008-2010

 

but you can ignore me, I’m not worth reading. But you’re still wrong

 

.

 

9 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Maybe the drafters should have written it into the amendment rather than stating it, then it would have meant something.

 

Let’s see

 

.

Now, you're just being difficult.  An EO, as we all know, can't change the Constitution.  But, it can provide the impetus for the chain of events that fast tracks it to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS can rule on just the specific question of the EO, or issue a a broader ruling on the question, where original intent may be of vital interest to the final ruling.

[Dric902]

19 minutes ago, Al Czervik said:

 

Now, you're just being difficult.  An EO, as we all know, can't change the Constitution.  But, it can provide the impetus for the chain of events that fast tracks it to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS can rule on just the specific question of the EO, or issue a a broader ruling on the question, where original intent may be of vital interest to the final ruling.

Long term

we already talked about that. If Trump wants to write an EO just for the injunction and the court challenge, he can. 

Not before the election and not before the caravan gets here. And is kind of a chancy way of doing it as precedent goes a long way in the courts, even the SCOTUS. Just because it’s 5-4 does not mean they will throw precedent out the door for Trump. Kavernaugh is not a rubber stamp and having a court majority does not mean that they will go full republican with everything. 

The base wants a full military deployment and battle action......they also want suppressors and national reciprocity. How’s that worked out for us

 

.

[Al Czervik]

23 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Long term

we already talked about that. If Trump wants to write an EO just for the injunction and the court challenge, he can. 

Not before the election and not before the caravan gets here. And is kind of a chancy way of doing it as precedent goes a long way in the courts, even the SCOTUS. Just because it’s 5-4 does not mean they will throw precedent out the door for Trump. Kavernaugh is not a rubber stamp and having a court majority does not mean that they will go full republican with everything. 

The base wants a full military deployment and battle action......they also want suppressors and national reciprocity. How’s that worked out for us

 

.

 

[Dric902]

Ok then

[NPTim]

On 11/5/2018 at 9:02 PM, Dric902 said:

I don’t want them here anymore than you do. But there are things you can do, and things you can’t do.

getting all bent out of shape arguing about the things you can’t do is a waste of time. It doesn’t do anything but make people mad while accomplishing nothing.

 

.

It is an interesting exercise in futility. Neither you nor I can do anything about it. My opinion, just as valid as yours, is they are a poorly equipped invasion force. It’s a gunfight, if they didn’t bring theirs, they chose poorly.

 

now, as far as issuing an EO to end “birthright citizenships” he simply can’t or any president could  shred the constitution. So he can’t do it. 

As for posse comitatus, not in play with this situation. The military can defend our borders, otherwise why have them?

when I was in high school, there was a bully that insisted that it was ONLY assault and battery if he spits in my face but it wasn’t illegal to monkey stomp me into a greasy spot. I could not convince him that he was mistaken. This reminds me of that situation except you aren’t a bully.

Edited November 11, 2018 by NPTim

[steve4102]

11 hours ago, NPTim said:

now, as far as issuing an EO to end “birthright citizenships” he simply can’t or any president could  shred the constitution. So he can’t do it. 

Not true, President Trump would not be shredding the Constitution, but instead Upholding the Constitution and abiding by the Fourteenth Amendment as WRITTEN and as INTENDED.

Not only CAN he do it he MUST do it.

[Dric902]

Defending the border is a military action

Policing the border is a law enforcement action

when Mexico, Honduras, etc declare war on us. (Not de facto declare war, not as much as declare war, not an act of war) then their military won’t last 5 minutes

as for “he must do it” ....he wont

the tent cities are not for the troops to sleep, not for the border patrol to rest or eat.

for the crossers while they are “processed” without guards as that would be a law enforcement action. Feed them, count them, medical check ups, showers and cots, and if they leave........nobody to stop them.

If they stay, they get a hearing date and time that they won’t show up for.

 

same as always

 

i wish I was wrong, but I’m not

 

 

.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Dric902

[fortyofforty]

Nothing to see here.  About El Chapo, from Fox News:

Those twins, by the way, were both born American citizens, since Aispuro crossed the Mexican border and gave birth to them at a hospital in Lancaster, Calif. - without filling in the paternal name on either birth certificate. Aispuro and her husband may have gotten that idea from her own experience since she, too, was born in Northern Calfifornia, even though her father was a known member of the Sinaloa drug cartel.

[Dric902]

https://nypost.com/2018/11/14/migrants-climb-over-fence-as-caravan-arrives-in-tijuana/

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Migrant-Caravan-Heads-to-Central-Mexican-City-of-Irapuato-500240681.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/world/americas/migrant-caravan-mexico.html

 

i didn’t tell ya, I told ya

 

.

[steve4102]

17 hours ago, Dric902 said:

https://nypost.com/2018/11/14/migrants-climb-over-fence-as-caravan-arrives-in-tijuana/

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Migrant-Caravan-Heads-to-Central-Mexican-City-of-Irapuato-500240681.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/24/world/americas/migrant-caravan-mexico.html

 

i didn’t tell ya, I told ya

 

.

...and this has what to do with the 14th Amendment?

[Dric902]

1 hour ago, steve4102 said:

...and this has what to do with the 14th Amendment?

That all of your political saviors aren’t going to do anything. You’re being lied to and played

 

.

[Jammersix]

Then let's go. Do it.

Get it written, let's get it into court. Wait, you mean it hasn't happened yet? Gee, with the election over, why ever not?

The rest is arm-waving, posing and ignorance.

[Dric902]

Just to be clear on the Passé Cumitatas, laws are amended many times;

 

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

The act only specifically applies to the United States Army 

yah, send in the marines, Navy and Air Force, right.......no

 

amended in 1956, to add the United States Air Force

well then, the navy and marines then,, ha ha!!

 

While the act does not explicitly mention the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, the Department of the Navy has prescribed regulations that are generally construed to give the act force with respect to those services as well.

and then qualified in the US Code:

10 U.S.C. § 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity

However.....

 

 

In 2006, Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill (repealed as of 2008). On September 26, 2006, President George W. Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that U.S. armed forces could restore public order and enforce laws in the aftermath of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition. These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.^[7]

Alright Bush, go get them Trump......aha!!!

 

 

 

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act.

damn Democrooks

 

On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received "administrative actions"

 

Policing the border is a law enforcement activity and the military cannot do it.

 

 

.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Dric902

[Dric902]

now, let’s do the 14th Amendment;

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that children born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction become American citizens at birth. At the time of the amendment's passage, President Andrew Johnson and three Senators, including Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act^[56][57] and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship to children born to foreign nationals in the United States

Andrew Jackson fought for it? Yup sure did

 

In the 21st century, Congress has occasionally discussed passing a statute or a constitutional amendment to reduce the practice of "birth tourism", in which a foreign national gives birth in the United States to gain the child's citizenship.^[

The clause's meaning with regard to a child of immigrants was tested in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).^[63] The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying out business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States.

Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants. Native Americans were found to not be covered under the 14th and weren’t made human persons until 1924

 

According to the Foreign Affairs Manual, which is published by the Department of State, "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the [Fourteenth] Amendment." so a person jumping the fence of an embassy and dropping a kid.....is not a US citizen by birth under the 14th.

 

Citizenship SCOTUS cases

• 1884: Elk v. Wilkins
• 1898: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• 1967: Afroyim v. Rusk
• 1980: Vance v. Terrazas
• 1982: Plyler v. Doe

so, it is not as easy as signing an EO to reinterpret the 14th.  While “chain migration” is an issue that can be dealt with legislatively as it is not mentioned at all in the body or case law of the 14th Amendment.

 

.

[Jammersix]

I like this article: http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/19/the-military-is-securing-a-1900-mile-bor