Who thinks this is a good idea?

[Mik]

Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.

[LuFins Dad]

@Mik said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.

I’ve heard a pretty good legal argument that birthright citizenship has been distorted beyond all reasonable measures. The original Amendment was a protection for the freed slaves and their children, and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” would exclude children of illegal aliens as they are living outside of the jurisdiction of the US. If somebody is staying in the country illegally on an expired visa, are they truly living subject to to the jurisdiction of the US?

[jon-nyc]

Yes. They certainly believe they are, the cops believe they are and are happy to arrest them when necessary, and the courts believe they are and will try them when necessary.

Try that with an ambassador’s kid.

[Jolly]

@LuFins-Dad said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@Mik said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

Just like mass deportations, birthright citizenship, tariffs, third term, etc. It's a starting position.

I’ve heard a pretty good legal argument that birthright citizenship has been distorted beyond all reasonable measures. The original Amendment was a protection for the freed slaves and their children, and the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” would exclude children of illegal aliens as they are living outside of the jurisdiction of the US. If somebody is staying in the country illegally on an expired visa, are they truly living subject to to the jurisdiction of the US?

I think that's how the Whitehouse is going to go about this...

[taiwan_girl]

So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

Yes. They certainly believe they are, the cops believe they are and are happy to arrest them when necessary, and the courts believe they are and will try them when necessary.

Try that with an ambassador’s kid.

If they are living under assumed identities with falsified identifications, social security numbers, or even living completely off the grid, are they truly living under the full jurisdiction of the US? By failing to comply with the laws and regulations they are hiding their very existence and not complying with the US Jurisdiction.

I could easily see this coming down to the type of documentation that you have.

[Jolly]

@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.

Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...

[taiwan_girl]

@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.

Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...

I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.

Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.

etc.

[LuFins Dad]

@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.

Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...

I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.

Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.

etc.

Abortion has never been seen as a right. Privacy was. A liberal court hid abortion under the privacy umbrella in the 70s but most judges including Ruth Vader Ginsburg have always acknowledged that it was some weak ass shit that wouldn’t stand up to a serious and unbiased review. And it didn’t.

[jon-nyc]

At most Trump get two votes on SCOTUS. At most.

[Jolly]

Maybe.

As I said, I don't think he's doing anything but refocusing the conversation. And maybe a finger in the wind for Amendment support.

[taiwan_girl]

@LuFins-Dad said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@Jolly said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@taiwan_girl said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

So, it appears that the US constitution can be interpreted differently by different people.

Ma'am, we have this thing called SCOTUS...

I agree with you 100%. But even SCOTUS interprets the US constitution differently at different times in history.

Slaves are not people. Yes they are
Abortion is a right. No its not
Separate but equal is ok. No it's not.

etc.

Abortion has never been seen as a right. Privacy was. A liberal court hid abortion under the privacy umbrella in the 70s but most judges including Ruth Vader Ginsburg have always acknowledged that it was some weak ass shit that wouldn’t stand up to a serious and unbiased review. And it didn’t.

Ah, did not know that. Thanks.

But I think that my comment still holds. There are a lot of decisions where the Supreme Court has reversed itself or done a different interpretation of the Constitution.

[jon-nyc]

@LuFins-Dad said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

including Ruth Vader Ginsburg

She did wear a black robe after all.

[Axtremus]

@Mik said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

It's a starting position.

"Starting position" is the new "4D chess."

[LuFins Dad]

@jon-nyc said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

@LuFins-Dad said in Who thinks this is a good idea?:

including Ruth Vader Ginsburg

She did wear a black robe after all.

I actually did that on purpose…