Midterm Elections

[Loco_local]

What will happen to Irvine (and Southern CA) real estate of Chinese birthing "hotels" go out of business?

Breaking News: @POTUS, in interview, says he plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizenshttps://t.co/FzUmZz1C0Y

Lindsey Graham says: Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship.https://t.co/kCa0ko7P76

I?ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform ? and at the same time ? the elimination of birthright citizenship.

 

[eyephone]

Trump wants to get rid of the 14th admenment of the Consitution. interesting

What will happen to Irvine (and Southern CA) real estate of Chinese birthing "hotels" go out of business?

Breaking News: @POTUS, in interview, says he plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizenshttps://t.co/FzUmZz1C0Y

Lindsey Graham says: Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship.https://t.co/kCa0ko7P76

I?ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform ? and at the same time ? the elimination of birthright citizenship.

 

[Perspective]

Trump wants to get rid of the 14th admenment of the Consitution. interesting

What will happen to Irvine (and Southern CA) real estate of Chinese birthing "hotels" go out of business?

Breaking News: @POTUS, in interview, says he plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizenshttps://t.co/FzUmZz1C0Y

Lindsey Graham says: Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship.https://t.co/kCa0ko7P76

I?ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform ? and at the same time ? the elimination of birthright citizenship.

Yep, and with an executive order no less.

I thought the Reps fought to protect the Constitution and the Dems only wanted to trample all over it. Now Trump wants to change it?

Oh, I think I understand. Reps hold the Constitution up as an infallible document subject to the strictest standard of interpretation made very difficult to change ... expect when they don't like something about it ... oh, and only when their interpretations of vague and ambiguous terms is utilized.

 

[zubs]

A lot of americans are against birthright citizenship.  Perhaps we should revise the 14th or at least put it up to a vote.  It seems like a monumental task to change an amendment, but someone has to start walking or you'd never get there.

 

[Kings]

Trump wants to get rid of the 14th admenment of the Consitution. interesting

What will happen to Irvine (and Southern CA) real estate of Chinese birthing "hotels" go out of business?

Breaking News: @POTUS, in interview, says he plans to sign executive order ending birthright citizenship for babies of non-citizenshttps://t.co/FzUmZz1C0Y

Lindsey Graham says: Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship.https://t.co/kCa0ko7P76

I?ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform ? and at the same time ? the elimination of birthright citizenship.

Yep, and with an executive order no less.

I thought the Reps fought to protect the Constitution and the Dems only wanted to trample all over it. Now Trump wants to change it?

Oh, I think I understand. Reps hold the Constitution up as an infallible document subject to the strictest standard of interpretation made very difficult to change ... expect when they don't like something about it ... oh, and only when their interpretations of vague and ambiguous terms is utilized.

wrong. trump wants to eliminate the application of the 14th amendment to illegal immigrants and anyone with a foreign claim to their citizenship.

history lesson:

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 where they reside.?

foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, thus the 14th amendment does not apply.

but wait, let's take a look at the history of legislation for the 14th amendment:

During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:

?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.?[1]

Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, ?Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.?

Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not ?subject to the jurisdiction thereof.? Senator Edgar Cowan said, ?It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.?[2]

Senator Lyman Trumbull said:

?The provision is, that ?all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means, ?subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.?[3]

He further elaborated, ?What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.?

There was still more discussion of the language by Senator Reverdy Johnson. He said:

?Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.?[4]

[1] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on the Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Howard. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11. 

[2] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Cowan. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11. 

[3] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Trumbull. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14. 

[4] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Johnson. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14. 

no doubt this will be challenged by the faithfully liberal 9th circuit, so it's a good thing trump's supreme court picks will actually interpret the constitution and its amendments as the founders intended 

 

[fortune11]

Why all the sudden focus on immigration

Wasn?t economy the best ever and tax cuts were the winning issue in midterms ? 

Do people want to walk this back as well as with everything else ...

 

[eyephone]

A lot of americans are against birthright citizenship.  Perhaps we should revise the 14th or at least put it up to a vote.  It seems like a monumental task to change an amendment, but someone has to start walking or you'd never get there.

This is the process:

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

My comment: if it?s not done this way then I don?t know

 

[eyephone]

Why all the sudden focus on immigration

Wasn?t economy the best ever and tax cuts were the winning issue in midterms ? 

Do people want to walk this back as well as with everything else ...

His response to the tragic events were not good. The poll numbers are down.

 

[Cares]

Oh, I think I understand. Reps hold the Constitution up as an infallible document subject to the strictest standard of interpretation made very difficult to change ... expect when they don't like something about it ... oh, and only when their interpretations of vague and ambiguous terms is utilized.

Kind of like the Bible...

 

[Cares]

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 where they reside.?

foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, thus the 14th amendment does not apply.

Here is the problem and obviously why it's such a grey area for legislation...a child born in the US is not a foreign national. They don't have allegiance or nationality in another country. Another country does not have jurisdiction over them.

 

[morekaos]

Not very civil...

Left-wing billionaire Tom Steyer is running a Facebook ad comparing President Donald Trump to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The ad features a three-minute long video that accuses the president of following a ?dictator?s playbook? modeled by tyrants like Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, in addition to Hussein.

The ad describes Trump as a ?malignant narcissist? and claims he is perpetuating ?systemic misogyny.? The video claims Trump?s support for a border wall and attacks on the media make him comparable to dictators like Hussein and Chavez.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/29/tom-steyer-donald-trump-saddam-hussein/

 

[Happiness]

Why all the sudden focus on immigration

The Dems could put a stop to this sudden focus on immigration by stating that they do not support the methods employed by the organizers and participants in the "carvan" and people in other countries must use the established legal means to obtain refugee or legal immigrant status. But the Dems won't.

 

[Happiness]

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 where they reside.?

foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, thus the 14th amendment does not apply.

Here is the problem and obviously why it's such a grey area for legislation...a child born in the US is not a foreign national. They don't have allegiance or nationality in another country. Another country does not have jurisdiction over them.

The Chinese Communist Party would beg to differ.

 

[Kings]

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 where they reside.?

foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, thus the 14th amendment does not apply.

Here is the problem and obviously why it's such a grey area for legislation...a child born in the US is not a foreign national. They don't have allegiance or nationality in another country. Another country does not have jurisdiction over them.

good point.  let's take mexico for example:

Acquisition of nationality

According to the 30th article of the Constitution of Mexico, there are two ways in which a person can acquire Mexican nationality: by birth or by naturalization.

The Mexican Constitution states that Mexican nationals by birth are:

- persons born in Mexican territory regardless of parents' nationality or immigration status in Mexico
- persons born abroad of a Mexican Citizen born in Mexico
- persons born to an individual after that person has become a naturalized citizen of Mexico
- individuals born on Mexican merchant- or Navy ships or Mexican-registered aircraft, regardless of parents' nationality
- children born to Mexican Diplomats or Ministry of Foreign Affairs Personnel working overseas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_nationality_law[/quote]

so, by mexican law, persons born abroad are mexican citizens first and not US citizens first

 

[eyephone]

Why all the sudden focus on immigration

The Dems could put a stop to this sudden focus on immigration by stating that they do not support the methods employed by the organizers and participants in the "carvan" and people in other countries must use the established legal means to obtain refugee or legal immigrant status. But the Dems won't.

Fox News? Shep Smith debunks Trump?s migrant-caravan rhetoric: ?There is no invasion?

?There is no invasion. No one?s coming to get you. There?s nothing at all to worry about.?
Shepard Smith
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/f...avan-rhetoric-there-is-no-invasion-2018-10-29

 

[eyephone]

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 where they reside.?

foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, thus the 14th amendment does not apply.

Here is the problem and obviously why it's such a grey area for legislation...a child born in the US is not a foreign national. They don't have allegiance or nationality in another country. Another country does not have jurisdiction over them.

The Chinese Communist Party would beg to differ.

I have noticed this is not your first post about the CCP. You know so much about them.

 

[Kings]

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 where they reside.?

foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, thus the 14th amendment does not apply.

Here is the problem and obviously why it's such a grey area for legislation...a child born in the US is not a foreign national. They don't have allegiance or nationality in another country. Another country does not have jurisdiction over them.

The Chinese Communist Party would beg to differ.

this is one example.  another example: children born to south korean or israeli nationals cannot travel to either country because they will be forced into the country's mandatory draft and military service for all nationals. 

 

[Kings]

Why all the sudden focus on immigration

Wasn?t economy the best ever and tax cuts were the winning issue in midterms ? 

Do people want to walk this back as well as with everything else ...

we can walk and chew gum at the same time    this is just another big issue that will ultimately change the landscape of immigration in the US

 

[eyephone]

Why all the sudden focus on immigration

Wasn?t economy the best ever and tax cuts were the winning issue in midterms ? 

Do people want to walk this back as well as with everything else ...

we can walk and chew gum at the same time    this is just another big issue that will ultimately change the landscape of immigration in the US

Their platform is crumbling.

 

[fortune11]

Why all the sudden focus on immigration

The Dems could put a stop to this sudden focus on immigration by stating that they do not support the methods employed by the organizers and participants in the "carvan" and people in other countries must use the established legal means to obtain refugee or legal immigrant status. But the Dems won't.

So basically you have no logical answer as usual except for saying blame the democrats

so far this caravan has seen panics involving hispanics, jews, muslims, and eradicated diseases, if they can just find a way to work in blacks and lgbt I think they?ll have hit for the cycle

anyway the point is MAGA has turned the caravan into their own version of stephen king?s ?it? where each unique darkest fear gets manifested within.