President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[swampfrog]

Has the supreme court ruled on children born of illegal immigrates in the US being given automatic citizenship? I have search but can't find such a case.

I already cited the case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO

From 1898 no less.

I guess that isn't illegal immigrants. Don't know about that one, I'll reread to see if any statement was made with regard to legality of the parents.

[Uncle Ted]

I already cited the case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO

From 1898 no less.

I guess that isn't illegal immigrants. Don't know about that one, I'll reread to see if any statement was made with regard to legality of the parents.

Yeah, it sounds like the parents were permanent residents of the US with some kind of work permit.

[frank ryan]

Paul Ryan doesn’t think birthright citizenship can be ended with an executive order:

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/30/politics/birthright-citizenship-executive-order-trump-paul-ryan/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[creekster]

I already cited the case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649#writing-USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO

From 1898 no less.

I guess that isn't illegal immigrants. Don't know about that one, I'll reread to see if any statement was made with regard to legality of the parents.

I am no expert (the few times immigration law issues have popped up in my cases I have hired specialists to help) and have not even read the entire opinion you linked, but I don't think this authority says what you assert. There is no analysis of whether the 14th amendment language applies to children of illegal aliens. The parents in the cited opinion were domiciliaries of the US at the time in question which, as I understand the law applicable at the time, was another way of saying that they were legal residents but not citizens. In addition, it looks like this case provides implicit support for the interpretation of the 14th amendment urged by Trump.

Again, no expert here and this is just based on a quick perusal of the case.

[creekster]

Paul Ryan doesn’t think birthright citizenship can be ended with an executive order:


https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/30/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

More importantly I think he should not do it. While this sort of executive order is not the same as some of the more recent abuses from prior presidents, arguably, with respect to delegating executive authority or usurping congressional authority, it is such a questionable move on such an important issue as to economic, social and constitutional issues, that he should not even be considering it. I don't think Trump will find much support for this approach, nor should he.

[Eddie]

I'm pretty sure that's the way it was purposefully designed. Congress does the best it can (which lately hasn't set the bar very high) to commit to writing its intent. When something is brought before the court, a judge decides whether the law as written applies or not--and if the law violates constitutional directives. Allowing a drafter to influence policy outside of what a law specifically states in writing is a disaster waiting to happen. A single drafter (or committee) does not have the right to create law, only the full body of Congress signed by the executive branch. The vote was on what was written, not on the intent of the original drafters. It's often a compromise position, regardless of the intent or desires of the original promoters. Maybe that's not interpret, could be there's a better word.

That Congress seems to continue to abdicate its position as lawmakers in recent years is a separate problem. Often resulting in the courts being forced to interpret ambiguous language.

Sure - that's true, and I get it completely.

I've also written and reviewed enough policy to know that it is pretty common to have a policy that is intending to address one specific issue, only to run into situations later in which that same policy results in unintended consequences.

I get that once the law is in place, you have to rely on the law. But to completely ignore unintended consequences (if there are any) and simply say "Well darn it, I didn't see that happening. I guess we'll just have to live with it" is pretty silly too.

Obviously this is something that we've all lived with for a long time. Personally - I can see how there is some value in changing things. Particularly as a cottage industry springs up for "birth tourism". And I'm not sure how excited we as Americans should be about that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

That said - I'm also in disagreement with the idea of deporting the DACA kids - or suddenly denying kids who were born in the US and grew up here, but now don't get automatic citizenship due to some change in the 14th amendment.

I know immigration and citizenship seems so black and white to many here - but it's a much more complex and difficult issue to wrap my head around for me.

[Uncle Ted]

Paul Ryan doesn’t think birthright citizenship can be ended with an executive order:


https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/30/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, likes it:

Embedded Tweet

And apparently has a bill in the works:

Embedded Tweet

Something else to fire up the GOP'ers to get to the polls?

[cowboy]

Trump’s understanding of the economy as evidenced by his 3 hour work days and strange and arbitrary trade wars is very limited. His decisions to restrict immigrants is an idealogical one based on race.

He was never a good business man. He was good at getting attention and branding and that is what he is successfully doing now, branding and getting attention with divisive policies and whining about the media.

Trump was a good businessman, as defined by success. The average entrepreneur goes bankrupt several times before finding success. He was perhaps not ethical, and certainly not moral, but he was shrewd and successful. I agree, however, that his economic knowledge has some major shortcomings, though I think that's pretty standard for most presidents. We've only had three presidents since WWII who understood the economy reasonably well, Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton, and even they all made their share of mistakes.

We're due for a recession, but Trump has not been bad for the economy overall. The expectation of efficiency through less regulation has given the economy a huge boost. His trade decisions drive me bonkers, and I'm with Commando on immigration, so don't interpret me as thinking he's done a good job. In fact, those two things alone have the potential to make the next recession steep and deep, given the money supply in circulation after quantitative easing.

What this country, and our economy, needs is a cheerleader that let's criticism roll off his back while he cheers the American workers on. Reagan got that better than anyone, but Clinton was a close second. I didn't agree with Clinton on much, but the guy at least understood that the economy needs more optimism and less divisiveness. In reality, Clinton had the good fortune of benefitting from a huge tech boom, but he could have easily screwed it up like Obama did with pretty much every industry he meddled in.

[creekster]

Lindsey Graham, on the other hand, likes it:

Embedded Tweet

And apparently has a bill in the works:

Embedded Tweet

Something else to fire up the GOP'ers to get to the polls?

That's different. There are some pretty reasonable arguments about birthright citizenship, but not by executive order.

[old_gregg]

Trump was a good businessman, as defined by success. The average entrepreneur goes bankrupt several times before finding success. He was perhaps not ethical, and certainly not moral, but he was shrewd and successful.

huh? his net worth has at best barely outpaced broad based index funds.

[Applejack]

huh? his net worth has at best barely outpaced broad based index funds.

You beat me to it!

Look at how much money his father gifted him (largely thru tax fraud). If Trump is a genius at anything, it is convincing people that he's a business genius.

[swampfrog]

I get that once the law is in place, you have to rely on the law. But to completely ignore unintended consequences (if there are any) and simply say "Well darn it, I didn't see that happening. I guess we'll just have to live with it" is pretty silly too.

Obviously this is something that we've all lived with for a long time. Personally - I can see how there is some value in changing things. Particularly as a cottage industry springs up for "birth tourism". And I'm not sure how excited we as Americans should be about that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

That said - I'm also in disagreement with the idea of deporting the DACA kids - or suddenly denying kids who were born in the US and grew up here, but now don't get automatic citizenship due to some change in the 14th amendment.

I know immigration and citizenship seems so black and white to many here - but it's a much more complex and difficult issue to wrap my head around for me.

The question is where should this debate be happening? It needs resolution, there is room for interpretation. However, Congress is so dysfunctional that both the executive and judicial branches are usurping authority that congress is voluntarily abdicating through extreme polarization.

If laws are suffering from the results of the law of unintended consequences (which the founders fully understood--that's why there's an amendment process), then why is Congress not meeting to shore up the laws when the consequences arise? It was designed to be iterative to handle both the inadequacy of human language and future unknowns. Precedence has weight, but can be overridden by Congress. If immigration policy needs to change, then let Congress change it.

[Uncle Ted]

You beat me to it!

Look at how much money his father gifted him (largely thru tax fraud). If Trump is a genius at anything, it is convincing people that he's a business genius.

Given that he is not in jail that has to count for something, doesn't it?

Drumpf is a master of the tweeter. He knows how to get people talking. In fact, I don't think CNN can stop talking about Drumpf.

[Commando]

huh? his net worth has at best barely outpaced broad based index funds.

If he had taken all that money he borrowed from his dad and put it in a Wells Fargo savings account he would probably have more money than he does now.

[frank ryan]

You beat me to it!

Look at how much money his father gifted him (largely thru tax fraud). If Trump is a genius at anything, it is convincing people that he's a business genius.

Ding ding ding! The truth right there. Trump has messed up thriving business operation he’s touched. He’s a tax cheat and a flimflam man who lies about his wealth to get on Forbes’ lists. This business mastermind stuff is a myth.