PIO: Trump wants to cancel the 14th amendment with an executive order

Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Rimjob Bob, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. Rimjob Bob

    Rimjob Bob Wordforge's Least Competent Wokelord

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,191
    Location:
    China
    Ratings:
    +14,957
    • Angry Angry x 4
    • Sad Sad x 3
  2. Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee

    Scott Hamilton Robert E Ron Paul Lee Straight Awesome

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    28,893
    Location:
    TN
    Ratings:
    +14,088
    • Dumb Dumb x 3
    • Facepalm Facepalm x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Fantasy World Fantasy World x 1
  3. Tererun

    Tererun Troll princess and Magical Girl

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    26,481
    Location:
    Beyond the Silver Rainbow
    Ratings:
    +16,816
    Only black presidents who make the least executive orders are not allowed to do them to make royal declarations changing the constitution like a king. Old racist republican white presidents are kings according to the republicans and alt right.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • TL;DR TL;DR x 2
  4. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Marietta, GA AKA epicenter of the Blue Tsunami
    Ratings:
    +9,853
    Birthright citizenship is an anachronism to a time when we were welcoming immigrants. Now it sends a conflicted message: your unborn child is welcome but you are not. Overdue for a change.

    It places an undue pressure on pregnant women to try to enter the country illegally, often putting their lives at risk.
    • Dumb Dumb x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. matthunter

    matthunter Ice Bear

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    19,875
    Location:
    Bottom of the bearstack, top of the world
    Ratings:
    +28,647
    So are assault rifles, but if we can't ban them because the 2nd is unchanging and immutable, Paladin shouldn't support this.

    He will, of course, or at the very least will go "I don't agree but SC seat so holding nose"
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  6. Rimjob Bob

    Rimjob Bob Wordforge's Least Competent Wokelord

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,191
    Location:
    China
    Ratings:
    +14,957
    I agree that it should be revisited as a sound policy, but that isn't the point here. It would require a constitutional amendment, not the decree of King Donald.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,467
    Ratings:
    +32,470
    This is a dog whistle for the midterms, along with sending troops to the border to stop the caravan of refugees. It's a distraction straight out of every fascist playbook.

    Whether or not he actually does this, it's going to drive racist voters to the polls who overwhelmingly vote Republican.

    If he actually does repeal all or part of the 14th Amendment and the Republicans retain Congress, it's the beginning of the end for our Constitution.
    • Agree Agree x 7
  8. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Marietta, GA AKA epicenter of the Blue Tsunami
    Ratings:
    +9,853
    I agree it's political grandstanding for votes.

    Regardless of his motivation, the policy needs to be changed. If he follows through it will be an interesting test of his powers in the courts.

    I don't think it's the beginning of the end of our constitution; it just bends the constitution to the time in which it lives. I'm perfectly ok with laws infringing on gun ownership: what's the difference?

    Here is the relevant text:
    Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" I think is the clause that may give Trump some leeway in issuing an executive order. If the parents are here illegally, how does this change "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

    We already deprive people of liberty, etc, without due process of law so long as they are here illegally.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2018
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  9. T.R

    T.R Don't Care

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,094
    Ratings:
    +8,840
    That title is really a dog whistle, but it will be interesting to see who wants to open this Pandoras box. You want to revisit the Constitution and amend it? Okay, but now you're giving leverage to the other side to do the same with the parts of it that they don't like eg: first and second amendments.

    I'm not a fan of this at all, leave the Constitution as it is.
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,467
    Ratings:
    +32,470
    Without derailing this into another gun thread, repealing a Constitutional amendment via executive order is blatantly unconstitutional regardless of whether you believe the amendment is OK or not. This isn't legislation being passed which may or may not toe the line. It's an outright repeal.

    There is a clearly defined process for repeal. Sidestepping that process at a time when it will inevitably be supported by the other two branches of government will in turn legitimize unilateral constitutional changes by the executive branch.
    • Agree Agree x 6
  11. Rimjob Bob

    Rimjob Bob Wordforge's Least Competent Wokelord

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,191
    Location:
    China
    Ratings:
    +14,957
    Jurisdiction is usually defined in terms of geography, no? If someone is on our side of the border, they are under the jurisdiction of our laws.

    We do?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    88,298
    Ratings:
    +59,732
    Gitmo and baby cages.
    Guess he's pro those things.
    Thought Steve was liberal....:chris:
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Diacanu

    Diacanu Comicmike. Writer

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    88,298
    Ratings:
    +59,732
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,467
    Ratings:
    +32,470
    This is a completely false read on that clause. The subject to language was included for diplomats and their families, who are the only individuals present in the US without being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Anyone else present in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. To suggest otherwise shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of jurisdiction, and would mean that we could not arrest non-citizens.

    A person's immigration, residency, or citizenship status does not affect jurisdiction so long as they are physically present on US territory and so long as they do not have diplomatic immunity.
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • popcorn popcorn x 1
  15. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Marietta, GA AKA epicenter of the Blue Tsunami
    Ratings:
    +9,853
    Jurisdiction is multi-faceted. There are three main types: personal, territorial, and subject matter. source

    yes, we summarily deport illegal aliens after holding them in conditions that would violate our rights. here's more.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Marietta, GA AKA epicenter of the Blue Tsunami
    Ratings:
    +9,853
    I'd agree with you, except for actual facts.

    Today, two-thirds of individuals deported are subject to what are known as “summary removal procedures,” which deprive them of both the right to appear before a judge and the right to apply for status in the United States. In 1996, as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Congress established streamlined deportation procedures that allow the government to deport (or “remove”) certain noncitizens from the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Two of these procedures, “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” allow immigration officers to serve as both prosecutor and judge—often investigating, charging, and making a decision all within the course of one day.

    source
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,467
    Ratings:
    +32,470
    You're conflating jurisdiction with constitutional rights. I'm not saying that it's right to treat undocumented aliens like that, but the mere fact that we detain them, give them a hearing, and deport them shows that we have jurisdiction over them.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. Rimjob Bob

    Rimjob Bob Wordforge's Least Competent Wokelord

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    9,191
    Location:
    China
    Ratings:
    +14,957
    I think the "jurisdiction" clause is giving detail to the first clause, not positing its own condition. In other words, those born or naturalized in the US are necessarily subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,467
    Ratings:
    +32,470
    You're proving my point. This shows we have jurisdiction over them. I don't think it's right, but summary removal is not possible without having jurisdiction
  20. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Marietta, GA AKA epicenter of the Blue Tsunami
    Ratings:
    +9,853
    Could be. I wouldn't put it past Trump to use it though. Seems like the summary removal procedure is effective at depriving rights.

    When expedited removal was first enacted, immigration officers applied it only to people who were seeking entry to the United States and not to those who were already in the United States. However, in 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) drastically expanded the scope of expedited removal by deciding that noncitizens encountered within 100 air miles of the southwest border who have not been present in the United States for the 14 days immediately prior to the date of encounter can be subject to expedited removal. In 2006, DHS announced that it would implement this policy along all of the U.S. borders​
  21. Fisherman's Worf

    Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    27,467
    Ratings:
    +32,470
    I agree that Trump is dumb enough to use that argument. But jurisdiction and rights are not the same thing.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Damar

    Damar Liberal Elitist

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    1,226
    Location:
    FL
    Ratings:
    +1,739
    According to our Republican friends ruling by Executive Order is the equivalent of tyranny. But that line of thinking only lasted until January 20, 2017.
    • Agree Agree x 8
  23. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Marietta, GA AKA epicenter of the Blue Tsunami
    Ratings:
    +9,853
    Not pro those things. But gitmo and separating parents from their children have pushed constitutional boundaries. Who's to say Trump can't with birthright citizenship? I think it will be up to the courts.

    For the record, I'm against birthright citizenship. We should stop dangling enticements for people to come here illegally.
  24. 14thDoctor

    14thDoctor Listen here, Jack

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    25,293
    Ratings:
    +31,404
    Then go back to Europe, colonizer. :shrug:
    • Funny x 4
    • Agree x 2
    • Winner x 2
    • popcorn x 1
    • Dumb x 1
  25. steve2^4

    steve2^4 Aged Meat

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,798
    Location:
    Marietta, GA AKA epicenter of the Blue Tsunami
    Ratings:
    +9,853
    I did. My daughter was born there. She has no right to French citizenship, however she was issued a US passport at birth by virtue of her parents' citizenship.
  26. The Flashlight

    The Flashlight Contributes nothing worthwhile Cunt Git

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    18,023
    Ratings:
    +6,739
    There's nobody that can honestly argue that birthright citizenship, which gave rise to the modern phenomenon of "anchor babies," is still a good thing in 2018.

    If you're making that argument, you're just pushing a progressive agenda that isn't grounded in reality. And it's why progressives aren't taken seriously.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  27. RickDeckard

    RickDeckard Socialist

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    36,019
    Location:
    Ireland
    Ratings:
    +28,407
    And there are mechanisms available to change the constitution if that is the case, I understand.
  28. TheLonelySquire

    TheLonelySquire Fresh Meat

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Messages:
    7,370
    Ratings:
    +3,702
    Do you really think that Republicans not abusing the Constitution would prevent the leftists from doing so? Really? Not a chance.
  29. K.

    K. Sober

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    27,290
    Ratings:
    +31,210
    The United States of America is a very recent thing. Anchor babies have been around much, much longer, probably longer than anchors. Anchor babies in the US specifically have been around for roughly four fifths of the US' existence, namely for the first three generations and then again beginning 1868.
  30. Tuttle

    Tuttle Listen kid, we're all in it together.

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,015
    Location:
    not NY
    Ratings:
    +4,887
    I no longer get the scripts, is this one of those: 'we must embrace America's long history and traditions of X' instead of the standard 'renounce everything from America's past as evil and an extension of our vile racist history because they had slaves back then, were men, and natives died from smallpox?'
    • Dumb Dumb x 1