Trump to make historic move toward revoking birthright citizenship
text.npr.org
text.npr.org
he has packed the SCOTUS and Congress. at this point the only amendment that will stop him is the 2nd Amendment. we'll see if the US leftwing has the stomach for that, cuz I bet they don't.
The other thing that I don't understand, all these leftist Americans that think America is terrible and Europe is clearly superior, are they able to name any countries that support birth-right citizenship?
Are we to take solace in that his worst actions will be rejected by the court?
Can we not have a good faith actor instead?
Is it not possible to have a president that begins from a position of knowledge and respect for the constitution? And thus this detour via the court system is made unnecessary?
not sure who exactly you are referring to but even people that I know that think Europe is "superior" do not thing that Europe is superior in every way. unlike all these rightist Americans the leftist ones believe in the US Constitution though :)
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.
Whether that applies to other cases is yet to be seen. But let's not pretend like it's obviously clear that the 14A means birthright citizenship no matter the circumstances, or that there aren't controversies here for the courts to settle.
Reasonable way to approach it would be to try to understand what the authors meant back then. Maybe they meant something completely different but why not address the obvious point the other side is making?
I also think granting citizenship to children of people who are in a country illegally is silly and I find it very disappointing that Trump's opponents are so ideologically driven and frankly blind to popular sentiment that they can't even admit it. They make it sound like an attack on human rights or some racist policy while the whole thing is ridiculous. It's rewarding people for breaking the law - the worse kind of policy you can come up with. There is a reason very few countries have this kind of rule.
> All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Even in 1800s people argued that immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". And Trump is betting on this.
The federal government's power to regulate business applies only to interstate commerce too, clearly and obviously in the text of the constitution. Look at where we are now.
The US has been able to survive for centuries under a single constitution (unlike most countries, e.g. France) because we have a tradition of interpreting and reinterpreting the constitution in ways that let us face the unanticipated challenges any civilization faces.
The "abuse" of the commerce clause isn't "bad" per se: rules do need to get made sometimes. The US would not be nearly as prosperous as it is today if the government were bound by the literal text of the commerce clause.
It's the same for other provisions of the constitution: famously, the document is "not a suicide pact". If we have a civilization-scale problem to solve, we'll find room in constitutional jurisprudence to solve it.
amazingly well thought out EO :clown_face:!