Trump doubles down on birthright citizenship, willing to take it to SCOTUS - Polidicks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-presses-on-with-case-to-end-birthright-citizenship-one-way-or-the-other/2018/10/31/bcd69dc2-dd12-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a862c5453cbc President Trump pushed forward with his vow to end birthright citizenship on Wednesday, even as it put him in open conflict with a key leader in his party. The president in tweets said he was willing to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of an executive order that would deny children born in the United States to parents in the country illegally automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment. He also used Twitter to harshly criticize House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), who a day earlier said that Trump could not carry out such an act. “Paul Ryan should be focusing on holding the Majority rather than giving his opinions on Birthright Citizenship, something he knows nothing about!” Trump tweeted Wednesday afternoon. “Our new Republican Majority will work on this, Closing the Immigration Loopholes and Securing our Border!” The extraordinary rebuke from Trump came one day after Ryan pushed back on the president’s remarks on the issue, saying “you cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order.” Ryan, who is not running for reelection, was in Kentucky on Tuesday campaigning for Rep. Garland “Andy” Barr (R) when he responded to Trump’s comments about birthright citizenship. Democrats could gain control of the House if they flip 23 Republican-held seats in next week’s election. Earlier Wednesday, Trump vowed to push forward with his call to end birthright citizenship, despite a backlash from legal scholars and some prominent members of his own party against his pledge a day earlier to take executive action on the matter. In morning tweets, Trump said he would end the 150-year-old practice “one way or the other,” seeming to leave the door open to either congressional action or a constitutional amendment, which many legal scholars say would be necessary to achieve his aims. In his Wednesday tweet, Trump asserted that birthright citizenship is not subject to the 14th Amendment because of the inclusion of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Legal experts have debated for years how to interpret the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, but the consensus is one-sided: Most agree that it in fact grants citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. In his latest tweets, Trump also highlighted a view expressed by then-Sen. Harry M. Reid in 1993 that “no sane country” would award citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born on its soil. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, reversed his position in 1999, at which time he apologized for his earlier stance. Reid responded in a statement that he had previously been wrong on the issue. “In 1993, around the time Donald Trump was gobbling up tax-free inheritance money from his wealthy father and driving several companies into bankruptcy, I made a mistake,” Reid said.

I'd say that Paul Ryan should stand his ground against Trump, but well... it's Paul Ryan.

Hah, good luck in SCOTUS. Half the Republicans on it are strict constructionists, and the Fourteenth Amendment is crystal clear. Even Gorsuch, GOP fuckboy that he is, wouldn't slide that way. I would put money on it being 9-0 against him.

In his latest tweets, Trump also highlighted a view expressed by then-Sen. Harry M. Reid in 1993 that “no sane country” would award citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants born on its soil. Reid, a Nevada Democrat, reversed his position in 1999, at which time he apologized for his earlier stance. Reid responded in a statement that he had previously been wrong on the issue. “In 1993, around the time Donald Trump was gobbling up tax-free inheritance money from his wealthy father and driving several companies into bankruptcy, I made a mistake,” Reid said. I miss Harry Reid

of course he is he's bought the scotus thanks to Mcconnell

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1057624553478897665?s=20 The President of the United States throwing 'so-called' in front of a black-and-white basic constitutional principle is a new level of scary

At this point he's literally just trying to distract from all the acts of terrorism carried out on his behalf.

His own argument doesn't even make any sense. If you're on US soil, you're subject to US jurisdiction.

No President has shown such disdain for the rule of law since Andrew Jackson ignored Supreme Court rulings.

Imagine being born into no country, having never asked to be born to begin with

Your belief that these people have any principles is laughable at this point.

https://twitter.com/JaneMoss08/status/1057710725857243136

Trump SUPPORTS immigrants MURDERING AMERICAN CITIZENS IMPEACH

This is just a red herring to fire up his base before the election. I think we'd be better off to ignore this bluff and not let him control the conversation.

The Trump justices - Kavanaugh and Gorsuch - are pretty much bought-and-paid-for. But the older Bush justices, Roberts, Thomas and Alito? They've got principles, maybe not the best ones but they've got principles. Alito and Thomas are very big on originalism and strict constructionism. The Constitution and laws say what they say, if there's any ambiguity you either go off the minimal sensible reading, or the original author's intent. And there is absolutely no way any legal scholar could interpret the Fourteenth Amendment to do anything but "anyone born in US territory, except diplomats and natives living on tribal land, are citizens". So that alone makes it an inevitable 7-2, minimum. Gorsuch hypes himself as a strict constructionist - he'd rule whatever if it could let a GOP law stand, but since there's no way this would, he'd side against it, even if just to polish his reputation. So that makes it an 8-1. Kavanaugh is the most junior, being the lone dissent this early in his tenure would already make him look like a dangerous radical. It being a Trump action after such a partisan nomination would make it political suicide to dissent - remember, Supreme Court justices can be impeached and removed from office just like Presidents. I will admit he's a bit of a wildcard, though - he might dissent in order to establish himself as the justice who doesn't stick to the status quo, isn't afraid to fight for what he thinks is right, all that noise.

You should have the same citizenship as your parents at birth.

out of curiosity, what if one is a citizen and the other is not?

Doesn't much matter if you've literally declared them outlaws in the first place

You basically inherit your parents nationality. Of the countries that observe Jus Soli with restricted conditions, most of the time from what I can see, if at least 1 parent is a citizen or permanent resident, then the child is given nationality of that parent.

Dual citizenship makes the most sense.

All citizenship is completely arbitrary in the first place, this is just another avenue to try and marginalize The Other People.

what's he got to lose? he's retiring in January anyway

Thomas is Mr. No Substantive Due Process, didn't he also argue that 14A only applies to its original purpose, that of making former slaves citizens? I might be mixing him up with Scalia.

That's the thing. He doesn't have anything to lose because he's already lost a ton of credibility over the past two years. He was critical of Trump during the elections, but he never openly opposed him. If anything he completely allowed Trump to be a mongoloid either out of submission or for fear of his job. You can be critical of Trump all you want, but if you let him run around saying anything he wants without repercussion then your critiques are completely baseless.

The only person that might even consider voting in favor of it is Kavanaugh - because he's not just a GOP fuckboy, he's Trump's fuckboy, specifically chosen for the purpose of bailing the orange out in the case of impeachment proceedings.

Thomas is an originalist - he goes by how a reasonable person at the time the text was written would have interpreted it. Making former slaves citizens was the driving reason for making it an amendment, but documentation abounds that the authors of it were simply codifying the existing principle of jus solis, and they knew full well that the amendment would grant citizenship to immigrants who were not themselves citizens, and considered the chosen phrasing to be the obvious way to express that concept. However, the question of "did the original authors intend citizenship to be extended to children of immigrants present illegally?" is not truly answerable because, in 1868, there was no law preventing immigration. Every immigrant was legal by virtue of there being no laws about immigrating. There were processes for naturalization, sure, and a law that allowed deporting aliens from a country we are at war with, but no laws at all about immigration. You may as well be asking "did the original authors intend citizenship to be extended to children of space aliens?" Now, the first laws applying any sort of restriction on immigration were passed less than a decade afterward, so perhaps there is some textual evidence how people living shortly after the amendment was written interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (and English wasn't changing so rapidly that seven years would substantively change the meaning). I highly doubt it's any different than the modern ordinary meaning interpretation - if we can arrest them or make them pay taxes, they're subject to our jurisdiction.

None of this open borders stuff please.

Quit trying to stir shit.

We're all human and the faster we get to a point where that is understood the better.

Two people are born 1 mile apart. One is a worthwhile, valued citizen, the other is a worthless non-citizen. One will be granted opportunity and support by a government, while the other will be completely rejected and cast out by that same government. One is Us, the other is Them. All because there just so happens to be an imaginary, fabricated line on a map dividing their two birthplaces. Zoom out from earth a little bit, and there are no borders, go back or forward a small amount of time, the borders are gone or completely different. These are false divisions between Humans, harnessed by those who have a vested interest in keeping the masses divided and against eachother. They are an engine of racism and of jingoism and of strife.