Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

New & Improved Amendment

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New & Improved Amendment

    There's a senator who wants to help the WH executive end birthright citizenship (eg,this part of the 14th amendment: "... 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. ..."
    Here's a link on today's handy helper, Senator Lindsay Graham:
    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said that he will introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship after President Trump suggested he wanted to do so through an executive order.

    "Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. Ive always supported comprehensive immigration reform and at the same time the elimination of birthright citizenship," Graham said in a string of tweets.
    .. ..

    He added that he plans "to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order" from Trump. Congress is out of session until Nov. 13.

    If Graham is going to propose legislation to amend the Constitution, his bill would need to win over not only two-thirds majorities in Congress, but also be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

    His announcement comes hours after Trump said in an interview released Tuesday that he will sign an executive order intended to end the practice of birthright citizenship.

    "It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said during an interview with Axios.
    ...
    https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ht-citizenship
    First, Senator Graham can help Trump understand stuff about the Constitution of the US, like lawmakin' or how to modify or repeal amendments. After that, the Senator and the prez can console each other following a resounding defeat of their attempt to modify the 14th amendment.
    Last edited by radcentr; 2 weeks ago. Reason: helpful link

  • #2
    I do wonder if the president is hinting around at ending or changing things in ways that put a stop to this in other ways.

    He has previously spoken on ending chain migration.. which is often connected to "birthright citizenship."

    When illegal aliens are using this as a tool to end up moving their entire extended families into the U.S., something is wrong and in need of correction.

    This is what we're seeing and what needs corrected.

    The founders did not intend the 14th amendment to be used in this way.

    "Send over your pregnant girlfriend Jose ! Have her give birth in America !! That's our whole families ticket into the place !"

    ?


    • #3
      So the president announced his "executive order" to end birthright citizenship and sent both sides into a tizzy:
      • Conservatives applauding and championing the president's effort; and
      • Lib'ruhls threatening and crying and gnashing their teeth...


      My observation has been, an executive order won't do it: The Supreme Court has already upheld birthright citizenship so if we don't want that to be, it will take an amendment to the constitution... and until yesterday, I had wondered if they were going to clue into that little tid bit.

      Kudos to Lindsey Graham who, since the Kavanaugh hearings, really does seem to be drifting back to the conservative side of the aisle.

      NOT that I believe a Constitutional Amendment has a ghost of a chance of prevailing ... but it's the thought that counts, right?

      ?


      • #4
        It may be interesting what, if anything happens.

        -------------------------------------------------

        U.S. citizenship is rendered meaningless if it is defined as an accident of geography and it is the clear that this was not the intention authors of those who wrote the 14th Amendment and shepherded it into the Constitution. President Trump has rightly targeted birthright citizenship as an historical error that needs to be corrected:

        ...

        Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that "theres a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

        "What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meaning youre the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship, Anton told Fox News Tucker Carlson in July. If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if youre the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.

        The only question is whether this historical error is better corrected though a clarifying amendment, legislation, or through a Trump executive order. GOP Rep. Steve King, R-IA, has proposed legislation:

        In January of this year, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 (HR 140) that seeks to amend current law by making requirements for citizenship more narrow, and, in Kings opinion, more constitutional

        A Century ago it didnt matter very much that a practice began that has now grown into a birthright citizenship, an anchor baby agenda, King said. When they started granting automatic citizenship on all babies born in the United States they missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal immigrants. That has got to stop.

        Kings bill seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill states that a person born in the United States is a citizen if one parent is (1) a citizen or national of the United States, (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

        But some would argue that no clarifying legislation is necessary and that as a result of President Trumps appointment of originalist interpreters of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, the original intent of the 14th Amendment can be restored.

        The Supreme Court has never said birthright citizenship is constitutional and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote it.


        https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...tizenship.html


        The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment reads:
        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.


        The 14th Amendment does not guarantee citizenship to everyone born in the USA. The language states that the persons born or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.

        The question, then, is, how is a person born in the United States subject to the jurisdiction of the USA?

        The few relevant Supreme Court cases state that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. This means that if the parents are illegal aliens, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA for purposes of the 14th Amendment citizenship test.

        Proponents for U.S. citizenship for all born in the USA of illegal aliens cite the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). But this case dealt with legal immigrants, not illegal, who had established a legal residence in the USA and thus domiciled in the USA. The Court stated:
        [A]t the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.


        The key is that the parents were lawfully "domiciled" in the USA.

        In Elkins v. Moreno, the Supreme Court dealt with "domicile" for in-state tuition in Maryland. "Domicile" is complicated, but the key is that one has a permanent legal residence.

        President Trump has announced he will deal by executive order with the question of citizenship for children born of illegal aliens. Senator Lindsey Graham announced he will introduce legislation to amend the 14th Amendment, similar to President Trump's proposed executive order.

        The question is the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if the baby's parents are illegal aliens.

        President Trump can issue an executive order to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Services that the policy of the United States is that children born of illegal aliens are not citizens because the parents as illegal aliens are subject to a foreign power. Illegal aliens are citizens of a country other than the USA and owe legal allegiance to that country.

        The important fact is that President Trump will force a discussion of this issue, which he may win in court. A constitutional amendment will take too long, so the best method is an executive order to get the case to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.




        https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...tizenship.html

        ?


        • #5
          If the executive order cannot be voided by a veto-proof law passed by Congress, then I suppose the next option would be the SC. So far, it looks like Congress could pass a veto-proof measure to shut down the WH on this issue. One question involves immediate enforcement. The prez can order ICE to enforce his EO, but would they follow thru if a judicial or legislative precedence were considered over the EO?

          The past/current strategy is thus: The foreign parents of a child born in the US can be deported, regardless, if they were "irregular" immigrants. The "anchor baby" strategy hasn't been valid for quite awhile, if it were ever successfully used. At least for Mexico's law, a child born here has citizenship rights there as well, so parents and child alike are deported (child is kept with family), or child is given up for adoption here in the US. That was also a clear distinction regarding DACA; conservatives weren't going after people born in the US, now adults. They were specifically objecting to kids born elsewhere, but raised in the US without completing immigration requirements.

          ?


          • #6
            What if the libruhls wont challenge the EO because they dont want any legal challenge that could rise up to the Supreme Court?

            With Kavanaugh now on SCOTUS, it could very well be that is THE reason Trump would even issue an EO that goes against an issue already decided by a previous Court.

            ?


            • #7
              A little eduction for us.

              Some of us may hate the person offering it. But...

              That isn't relevant to the truth of the matter.

              -------------------------------------------------------------------

              People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.

              .. the president can end the citizenship of "anchor babies" by executive order -- for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.

              It's just something everyone believes to be true.

              How could anyone -- even a not-very-bright person -- imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?

              The first question would be: Why would they do that? It's like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?

              The Supreme Court has stated -- repeatedly! -- that the "main object" of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment "was to settle the question ... as to the citizenship of free negroes," making them "citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

              Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!

              YOU MEAN THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

              Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.

              You can make it up. It doesn't have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

              As the court has explained again and again and again:

              "(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."


              That's why the amendment refers to people who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States "and of the state wherein they reside." For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren't citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.

              The 14th Amendment fixed that.

              The amendment didn't even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

              Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It's easy to miss -- the law is titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.") Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

              Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.

              President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.

              But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about "civil rights," you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.

              Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans -- the very people the amendments were written to protect!

              Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there's a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That's "birthright citizenship."

              It's something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a "citizen."

              This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. "Dicta" means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.

              Left-wing activists seized on Brennan's aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.

              No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It's a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan's 1982 footnote.

              Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won't be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.

              It's often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.



              http://www.anncoulter.com/

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                What if the libruhls wont challenge the EO because they dont want any legal challenge that could rise up to the Supreme Court?

                With Kavanaugh now on SCOTUS, it could very well be that is THE reason Trump would even issue an EO that goes against an issue already decided by a previous Court.
                That was an interesting line of thought for me; what would a SCOTUS of this day 'n age do with a conflict regarding the 14th amendment, when "birthright" was supposedly decided about 120 years ago? Here's one link, right wing bias:
                1. Universal birthright citizenship is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment (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.) and is inconsistent with the intent of the amendments framers.
                2. Based on the legislative history at the time, the 14th Amendments framers intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction, primarily the newly freed slaves, who were lawful permanent residents.
                3. Owing allegiance to the United States and being subject to its complete jurisdiction means being not subject to any foreign power and excludes those only temporarily present in the country.
                4. Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Courts 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which challenged the governments decision to deny re-entry to a U.S.-born child of foreign nationals who were legally present and permanently residing in the United States.
                Wong Kim Ark stands only for the narrow proposition that the U.S.-born children of lawful permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens. It says nothing with respect to the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens.
                (I bolded last part of quote)
                https://www.heritage.org/immigration...ht-citizenship

                Another link, left wing bias:
                Many decades later in the case of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), in which the Court upheld the right of all children regardless of alienage to a free public education, the Court analogized its holding on Equal Protection Clause grounds to the settled law on the Citizenship Clause as declared in Wong Kim Ark. Specifically, the Court noted that just as undocumented immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of the Citizenship Clause, they too are within the jurisdiction of a state for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 211 n.10.
                https://www.americanprogress.org/pre...cutive-action/

                There we have it. If or when the EO happens, it will be contested, first in Congress. If it is not resolved at that point (my position), it will probably be argued in the SCOTUS. Between the two links above, the arguments pro/con are summarized. The conservative position -court's view- is apparently less clear than some would like, as far as the birthright issue is concerned.

                ?


                • #9
                  Im expecting Pelosi to enact a new DACA law (which should en enacted a few years back, to avoid Obamas phone and pencil)... and claim it as her idea.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                    Im expecting Pelosi to enact a new DACA law (which should en enacted a few years back, to avoid Obamas phone and pencil)... and claim it as her idea.
                    Who can tell what pelosi may do. Or say.

                    It won't matter for useful purposes, she has a history of saying weird things.

                    Sadly, I think we can expect she'll continue being an embarrassment to herself, her family and America.

                    Funny that many want to ignore the facts issued here - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...290#post559290

                    Because they happen to come from someone they don't "like"

                    ... they're still facts. Some of us will pretend they're not, or that they don't exist etc.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                      Who can tell what pelosi may do. Or say.

                      It won't matter for useful purposes, she has a history of saying weird things.

                      Sadly, I think we can expect she'll continue being an embarrassment to herself, her family and America.

                      Funny that many want to ignore the facts issued here - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...290#post559290

                      Because they happen to come from someone they don't "like"

                      ... they're still facts. Some of us will pretend they're not, or that they don't exist etc.
                      So far, the history around the 14th -from it's creation to the judicial reviews- points to another landing in the SCOTUS. It will be interesting how, or if, those two arguments (noted in post #8) will be made. The other possibility might be Trump's EO is just a claim, rather than a reality.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        So far, the history around the 14th -from it's creation to the judicial reviews- points to another landing in the SCOTUS. It will be interesting how, or if, those two arguments (noted in post #8) will be made. The other possibility might be Trump's EO is just a claim, rather than a reality.
                        As this president likes to say a lot; "We'll see." LOL

                        We can only make wild guesses at this point I think.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                          As this president likes to say a lot; "We'll see." LOL

                          We can only make wild guesses at this point I think.
                          I'm guessing Trump will go for it, and if it goes to the supreme court he will win.

                          Here is the original quote, from Senator Jacob Howard. Referring to the citizenship clause of the 14thAmendment, he says:
                          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 persons.
                          https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicp...to-my-critics/


                          Birthright citizenship for illegal aliens has been a scam all along.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by msc View Post
                            I'm guessing Trump will go for it, and if it goes to the supreme court he will win.

                            Here is the original quote, from Senator Jacob Howard. Referring to the citizenship clause of the 14thAmendment, he says:
                            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 persons.
                            https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicp...to-my-critics/


                            Birthright citizenship for illegal aliens has been a scam all along.
                            It is a scam as is shown here - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...290#post559290

                            The anchor baby then drag the entire clan in, has gone on long enough and needs to end. There's no justification for it.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                              It is a scam as is shown here - https://www.uspoliticsonline.com/for...290#post559290

                              The anchor baby then drag the entire clan in, has gone on long enough and needs to end. There's no justification for it.
                              The anchor baby scheme hasn't worked in the parent's favor for awhile, if it ever did. Link:
                              This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
                              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ae6898966062

                              The scheme takes about 21 years to pull off. From the same link:
                              That long game is this: If and when a U.S. citizen reaches the age of 21, he or she can then apply for a parent to obtain a visa and green card and eventually enter the United States legally.
                              ..The parent needs to leave the US after the kid is born here. .But, if the parent violated any US laws during their original stay here, that puts their petition for residency in peril.

                              Arguing Trump's case in court, it might be a wiser strategy to stick with comments from the authors of the 14th, along with a prepared counter to the Plyer v. Doe angle. I'd drop the "anchor baby" argument, which apparently make up a very small number of successful immigration cases for adults. Most of those parents are deported; the baby either stays here (adoption or placed w/ qualified relative) or goes back to parent's home country along with parents.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X