Birthright citizenship to be eliminated by EO

[BrandonA]

I personally hope Trump does issue the EO to end the anchor baby citizenship. It would be immediately opposed through federal libtard judges and this would drive it to the Supreme Court... Based on historical writing and the explanations the founders/authors wrote themselves the intent of this amendment there is a high likelihood anchor babies would be found to be unconstitutional from that point forward. This action could very well drive it to the forefront and a solution one way or the other in short order.

Exactly

[sir shovelhands]

Congress needs to amend the amendment and change language to only legal citizens

Congress can't amend the constitution (though it can propose an amendment with 2/3 majority in both houses). The power to amend resides with the state legislatures, and you need 38 states to do so.

[BrandonA]

Congress can't amend the constitution (though it can propose an amendment with 2/3 majority in both houses). The power to amend resides with the state legislatures, and you need 38 states to do so.

Then they need to propose and states need to amend. I think enough states to would make it happen.

[lunatic'hunter]

I believe Mark Levin is one of the best constitutional lawyers of our time and I put a lot of weight in his thought process and how he views the situation according to the constitution. I am a Trump supporter and I think he is onto something and I bet he gets this done.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[flywise]

The more I listen and read about it I think he can do it legally but I think this may be Trump's way of forcing the subject to be ruled upon by the courts.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I believe you are correct.
I dont think there is any question our gov. Officials have been allowing this crap to happen when it never should have been. The courts will rule on this eventually and it should be in the favor of the Ameican people.

[AZST_bowhunter]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

This is a good court case to base this all off of

[muzzlebrake]

Old dead eye Harry agrees with Trump. So did Obama. Or is it the other way around? https://youtu.be/75a9Wa6KL7k

Again the hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds

[SaltwaterSlick]

I don't know how the best way to get this in front of the SCOTUS. If the President indeed issues this EO, it will immediately be blocked by a lower Federal Court Judge and that will set the process in motion... However, what will be ruled on is the President's EO NOT the constitutionality of the anchor baby policy. If that happens, likely it will be shot down by the SCOTUS... Somehow, legislatively this issue needs to get before the SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers and their INTENT... IF that can be made to happen, this anchor baby crap will be shot down totally once and for all... I'm just not sure the President taking such action is the way to make it happen... Someone with "standing" must make it happen... Who do y'all think would have "standing" in this issue? First thing comes to mind is all the public/private hospitals that must deliver and provide care for these illegal babies... However, not sure they want to change it... they all get big bucks out of it... Saw an article that stated 70% of all babies born in public hospitals in Los Angeles County are to illegal unwed women... If those "patients" went away, that money (estimated to be 1.2 Billion dollars/year) could be used to maybe improve education... build roads, pay on Kalifornika's debt... Trouble is, the hospital districts stand to lose the funding and the need for their inflated budget goes away... It's a viscous, terrible cycle and I admit, I'm somewhat at a loss to know how to fix it...

[donpablo]

I don't know how the best way to get this in front of the SCOTUS. If the President indeed issues this EO, it will immediately be blocked by a lower Federal Court Judge and that will set the process in motion... However, what will be ruled on is the President's EO NOT the constitutionality of the anchor baby policy. If that happens, likely it will be shot down by the SCOTUS... Somehow, legislatively this issue needs to get before the SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers and their INTENT... IF that can be made to happen, this anchor baby crap will be shot down totally once and for all... I'm just not sure the President taking such action is the way to make it happen... Someone with "standing" must make it happen... Who do y'all think would have "standing" in this issue? First thing comes to mind is all the public/private hospitals that must deliver and provide care for these illegal babies... However, not sure they want to change it... they all get big bucks out of it... Saw an article that stated 70% of all babies born in public hospitals in Los Angeles County are to illegal unwed women... If those "patients" went away, that money (estimated to be 1.2 Billion dollars/year) could be used to maybe improve education... build roads, pay on Kalifornika's debt... Trouble is, the hospital districts stand to lose the funding and the need for their inflated budget goes away... It's a viscous, terrible cycle and I admit, I'm somewhat at a loss to know how to fix it...

AZST posted a case that has already been ruled on by the Supreme Court. SCOTUS could take the case up again but would most likely let the previous ruling stand. I read the dissenting argument (in the link) but I tend to disagree that suggesting older international laws (not US laws) would be a valid argument suggesting why the amendment should be interpreted differently. I can only see this changing by amendment/congressional legislation.

A few months back I heard a Caucasian gentleman give a speech in which he revealed that his great grandmother had been a stowaway to the US on a ship from Ireland. He asked if that made him an illegal. I thought to myself, "No, that makes your grandfather an anchor baby."

[iamntxhunter]

I don't know how the best way to get this in front of the SCOTUS. If the President indeed issues this EO, it will immediately be blocked by a lower Federal Court Judge and that will set the process in motion... However, what will be ruled on is the President's EO NOT the constitutionality of the anchor baby policy. If that happens, likely it will be shot down by the SCOTUS... Somehow, legislatively this issue needs to get before the SCOTUS to rule on the interpretation of the Constitution as written and meant by our Founding Fathers and their INTENT... IF that can be made to happen, this anchor baby crap will be shot down totally once and for all... I'm just not sure the President taking such action is the way to make it happen... Someone with "standing" must make it happen... Who do y'all think would have "standing" in this issue? First thing comes to mind is all the public/private hospitals that must deliver and provide care for these illegal babies... However, not sure they want to change it... they all get big bucks out of it... Saw an article that stated 70% of all babies born in public hospitals in Los Angeles County are to illegal unwed women... If those "patients" went away, that money (estimated to be 1.2 Billion dollars/year) could be used to maybe improve education... build roads, pay on Kalifornika's debt... Trouble is, the hospital districts stand to lose the funding and the need for their inflated budget goes away... It's a viscous, terrible cycle and I admit, I'm somewhat at a loss to know how to fix it...

Just relax SS I don't think anyone is expecting you to know how to fix it. LOL
I think Trump knows how to get the results that he wants to achieve. Even if it doesn't work out I give Trump a A+ for at least trying to do something about the asinine interpretation of this amendment.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

[Shinesintx]

Yea, let them take it to the Supreme Court. Sooner the better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure why some in this forum don’t understand that an EO will spur a trip to the SCOTUS...which is what Trum wants.

[SaltwaterSlick]

Yea but Don, that one was not a case in which the baby's parents were illegal aliens was it? THAT's the part that I think makes a difference... It's that "jurisdiction" issue, the issue that would entitle someone to gubment bennies and regulations ... an Illegal Alien is only subject to prosecution by laws that is NOT jurisdiction as I understand it...

[SaltwaterSlick]

Not sure why some in this forum don’t understand that an EO will spur a trip to the SCOTUS...which is what Trum wants.

I'd be all for that, but as I posted above, I'm not sure that will render the judgement that Trump or many of us would like to see... Believe the left leaning libtards will file the appeal based on the EO, NOT on the anchor baby interpretation... that's what concerns me.

[BrandonA]

Yea but Don, that one was not a case in which the baby's parents were illegal aliens was it? THAT's the part that I think makes a difference... It's that "jurisdiction" issue, the issue that would entitle someone to gubment bennies and regulations ... an Illegal Alien is only subject to prosecution by laws that is NOT jurisdiction as I understand it...

I agree with you

[donpablo]

Yea but Don, that one was not a case in which the baby's parents were illegal aliens was it? THAT's the part that I think makes a difference... It's that "jurisdiction" issue, the issue that would entitle someone to gubment bennies and regulations ... an Illegal Alien is only subject to prosecution by laws that is NOT jurisdiction as I understand it...

I see where you're coming from but I can't come up with any other definition/interpretation of the word jurisdiction. Do you have any examples of the legal use of the word jurisdiction as you're interpreting it that would apply here? I may just be ignorant to these other uses of the word.