Birth right citizenship

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

We've failed on immigration. Hell, we literally leave laws untouched for 27+ years and then wonder why programs go extinct. 

I agree with you on that. That's one of the few issues we will probably agree on. So I'm not here to argue that. We def need stricter security at the borders. It shouldn't be so easy for people to sneak in. But what does taking birth right citizenship away going to really accomplish to fix the problem?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Exactly my point. I was responding to a comment that the Democrats just want to " let them all in". The fact that the Obama administration deported illegals at such a high rate proves that that comment on the Democrats isnt true. Thanks for pointing that out.

Some democrats certainly see a parallel between increased immigration and partisan benefit. Thats undeniably true. My point was more geared towards the fact that the very circumstances immigrants face that strike emotion in so many has been happening for quite some time. That does not make it right, but it is notable and worth realizing. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Just now, AuCivilEng1 said:

I agree with you on that. That's one of the few issues we will probably agree on. So I'm not here to argue that. We def need stricter security at the borders. It shouldn't be so easy for people to sneak in. But what does taking birth right citizenship away going to really accomplish to fix the problem?

I don't think an EO doing that would pass constitutional muster. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

25 minutes ago, AUDub said:

 

For some bozos, probably. What we're talking about is different though. Birthright citizenship is still hotly contested in the world of legal academia. You should read up on con law more - you'd find it interesting. I personally don’t have sincere questions as to the validity of such an EO. Wouldn’t stand.

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I don't think an EO doing that would pass constitutional muster. 

Lord I hope not. But the fact that out president wants it to is a whole other issue.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I don't think an EO doing that would pass constitutional muster. 

Agreed.

Side bar: I find it hilarious that some conservatives are now conveniently finding the use of EO's to be fine.  Wasn't that way while 44 was in the White House.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Lord I hope not. But the fact that out president wants it to is a whole other issue.

Welp, I’m about to take a sabbatical from the forum. It’s “finals” season. The EO itself, the moment it’s signed (if at all) will be judicially struck down. Don’t fret too much on the order itself.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Agreed.

Side bar: I find it hilarious that some conservatives are now conveniently finding the use of EO's to be fine.  Wasn't that way while 44 was in the White House.

I enjoy digging below the surface in legal issues such as these and at least pinpointing potential avenues through which arguments on both sides could prevail. I’m weird I know.

Oh well. I’m about to have to hang it up. I trust you’ll defend me in my absence.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

12 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I enjoy digging below the surface in legal issues such as these and at least pinpointing potential avenues through which arguments on both sides could prevail. I’m weird I know.

Oh well. I’m about to have to hang it up. I trust you’ll defend me in my absence.

Good luck with finals and hit the links when you're done with them.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

From a neutral standpoint, the President's lack of articulation as it pertains to drastic measures he seemingly desires to accomplish is perhaps more detrimental than the desire itself. Anyone capable of replacing unconstrained emotion with objectivity can respect, listen, and respond with matched calculation to a well-articulated proposition, notwithstanding its accompanying irreconcilability with one's own view.  

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

James C. Ho - judge on Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and a conservative - gives a good outline of why the Executive Order wouldn't work. 

[bigbird 60,491]

3 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Funny how the whole "always follow the constitution how it was written" argument can shape shift, depending on the argument and arguer.

In 1987, while delivering a lecture titled "The Constitution: A Living Document," Thurgood Marshall argued that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the moral, political, and cultural climate of the age of interpretation.

So if it is a "living document", then it must be interpreted against the current climate...which is wholly different than when the 14th was written.

[bigbird 60,491]

2 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

But what does taking birth right citizenship away going to really accomplish to fix the problem?

That is a huge incentive to cross over. Combine that with the federal aide that they will receive and the incentive to cross  is even larger.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

3 hours ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

What exactly is the current situation? So two people come over here illegally, they have a child, that child is a citizen, goes to school in the U.S., graduates, parcipates in our economy, marries someone else living in this country, and has children and it repeats. 

Whats the problem? What has that child done to not deserve to be accepted by this country as one of it's own? 

The problem is just you stated. The parents came her ILLEGALLY. Your 90% number is bogus because only a small percent of our people were born to illegals. Another issue is that some illegals sneak in with deliberate intent to have a child so they all don't get sent back.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

11 minutes ago, bigbird said:

That is a huge incentive to cross over. Combine that with the federal aide that they will receive and the incentive to cross  is even larger.

Exactly and why aren't the kids of homeless U.S. citizens getting the same benefits. Illegals re getting better health care at taxpayer expense than a lot of our vets.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

37 minutes ago, bigbird said:

In 1987, while delivering a lecture titled "The Constitution: A Living Document," Thurgood Marshall argued that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the moral, political, and cultural climate of the age of interpretation.

So if it is a "living document", then it must be interpreted against the current climate...which is wholly different than when the 14th was written.

That is....not a conservative, textualist view of the Constitution.  Do you really want to open that Pandora's box?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

From a neutral standpoint, the President's lack of articulation as it pertains to drastic measures he seemingly desires to accomplish is perhaps more detrimental than the desire itself. Anyone capable of replacing unconstrained emotion with objectivity can respect, listen, and respond with matched calculation to a well-articulated proposition, notwithstanding its accompanying irreconcilability with one's own view.  

He doesn't care about that.  He knows he can throw out a dead fish like this to rile up his base right before midterms, then shrug and say "I tried" when the courts rightly kick that s*** to the curb a few months later.

[bigbird 60,491]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

That is....not a conservative, textualist view of the Constitution.  Do you really want to open that Pandora's box?

No it's not. That's the point. The progressive idea of a living document can't be turned on and off.  If we take a textualist view, then there should be no issues about birth right citizenship.  If we take a liberal/progressive view, then we must take into consideration the current political, cultural, moral climates and therefore be able to revisit the 14th.

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

32 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

The problem is just you stated. The parents came her ILLEGALLY. Your 90% number is bogus because only a small percent of our people were born to illegals. Another issue is that some illegals sneak in with deliberate intent to have a child so they all don't get sent back.

I was throwing that out there saying that a large large number of people in the US can be traced back to immigrants who never got a citizenship in this country. Forget the 90%. I wasn't claiming that a literal 90% of the country are children to illegals. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He doesn't care about that.  He knows he can throw out a dead fish like this to rile up his base right before midterms, then shrug and say "I tried" when the courts rightly kick that s*** to the curb a few months later.

What does that have to do with what I said. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

What does that have to do with what I said. 

Just that the problem you point out is one he couldn't care less about avoiding.  In fact, he sees his manner of communication as a feature, not a bug.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

17 minutes ago, bigbird said:

No it's not. That's the point. The progressive idea of a living document can't be turned on and off.  If we take a textualist view, then there should be no issues about birth right citizenship.  If we take a liberal/progressive view, then we must take into consideration the current political, cultural, moral climates and therefore be able to revisit the 14th.

Not to chase rabbits, but would love to offer my little insight:

The problem with the latter view is that it often results in legislation from the bench, especially when Judges attribute meanings to the Constitution inconsistent with its initial ratification for sake of building consensus. Not only is that a detriment to democracy, but it is an utter usurpation of the Constitution itself, such as the bicameralism and presentment clauses. In essence, the “living document” approach easily confuses judge and legislator..

Textualism might not be THE way, but it’s preferable to alternatives. Can it lead to surprising results sometimes? Could hitler make a fascinating car? Could mussolini make trains run on time? (Shout out to Scalia). 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Just that the problem you point out is one he couldn't care less about avoiding.  In fact, he sees his manner of communication as a feature, not a bug.

Just trying to be intellectually honest in my assessment, regardless.

[homersapien 11,362]

35 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Just trying to be intellectually honest in my assessment, regardless.

And Titan was just pointing out that Trump deliberately uses "inarticulate" and blunt language to rile up his base.  His style is a feature, not a problem.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And Titan was just pointing out that Trump deliberately uses "inarticulate" and blunt language to rile up his base.  His style is a feature, not a problem.

Ok homer. Thanks.