POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

How in the hell is the SC going to allow an EO directly in contradiction to the 14th amendment?

 

I’m going to admit I’m confused on this. If you’re trying to stop the children of those who benefitted from birth tourism from also benefitting from it, ok. But why the language about US military and government employees as well. I get that this is aimed at military/employees that haven’t really lived in the US but are there enough of those to warrant the others having to go through these new hurdles?

 

Yes, yes, yes...this is the first and only paperwork that a veteran serving overseas and who has a child with a foreign national in a foreign land has ever had to complete.

Prior to this, they just shoved them in a bag and brought’em in.

 

Step 1.

 

Why is it necessary for step 2? Why not keep the exemption for those serving the US abroad? I just mean it isn’t clear and seems to be more damaging than its worth - I need the worth spelled out I guess.

 

Unless step 3 is a constitutional convention... I mean, the words are pretty clear:

There is not one word about parents, so I'd love to see the argument that will be made that new borns are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

 

You should have seen the paperwork I had to do to get my babies out of the hospital. I even had to pay for them first too

Edit, this was in Miami, which, most, including me, think is a third world country

 

My brother was born in England while my father was stationed there. He went on to be an American Marine serving in Afghanistan. The idea that his citizenship would be in question were these rules in place then is downright baffling to me.

 

There is an odd isolationist vibe in the country right now that I find disturbing.

 

Because MAGA!?

 

America first is really America alone.

 

I understand the logic behind removing birthright citizenship, and I’m not opposed (especially when it comes to illegal immigrants and non residents), but it absolutely has to be done via the constitution. If this is up for interpretation, there’s no reason to think a liberal court couldn’t have a significantly different interpretation of the second amendment.

 

I am all for looking at changing birthright citizenship. But we have to do it the correct way, and an EO is not only the wrong way, but illegal.

 

Well.

 

Go on...

 

I don’t like EO’s, in almost all cases, and for reasons previously mentioned.

Luckily, the courts will be quickly asked to review the legality of any EO which is signed.

 

Can't disagree with 1st part.
Slight edit to 2nd "almost" anything.
I'll take ownership of my falsely auspices objectivity over the mental gymnastics of your defensive rationalizations.

You like him, I don't. That's ok. Butch Jones still sucks and [uck fay] florida.

 

I don’t try to defend him, as he is what he is.

We can always agree on the last parts, anytime.

 

That's what is frustrating, Tenny. "He is what he is," but because he serves some ends he gets a pass. Yet he is setting a standard that someone else can easily abuse, and could be serving entirely alien ends.

 

I disagree with your first statement by how it looks from another perspective. Many times when a contradictory Trump post is made, like in the past few pages, you work to trivialize the concerns posed.

Or maybe it's just the internet forum culture and I'm tired of the shit as of late. I don't know. I'm sure I've been guilty of it too.