it is not the court to write laws but merely interpret it, i think chief justice would side with the constitution, if he doesn’t want to be ousted when dem comes back to town.
Absolutely correct Arnie and I'm really happy that Trump is moving forward with this so we can get a ruling. It's obvious to any right minded person that illegal aliens are not under US Jurisdiction and therefore their offspring are not automatic citizens.
After thinking about it I think this is a brilliant move by Trump.While I still don't think his EO will hold up in courts what it will do is force the nation to confront the issue and no longer ignore it for another 100 plus years, possibly leading to a constitutional amendment to end birth citizenship.
As we know, hundreds of thousands of immigrants have entered illegally and the Biden administration has given them documentation to be here in the country pending their scheduled immigration hearing some four or five years down the road now. In the interim many babies will be cranked out. But the documentation that the Biden administration has given them allow/permits/acknowledges that they are now here by legal permission even if their ultimate status here will still be the subject of a hearing. In other words, he has handed the illegals a credible argument that they are here legally at the time a future baby is born and the government temp status includes an agreement that they are subject to the jurisdiction's laws. As Obama says, don't underestimate Joes ability to fuck things up. Trump needs to move them out immediately before they reproduce more. The other thing to be considered as part of this birthright issue is the very large birth tourism business/game going on. Chinese and Saudi women flying in on a tourist visa right before birth, squatting and producing an American citizen and then leaving. Need to put an end to that.
The best way to address the "anchor babies" issue is not by an Executive Order which violates the Constitution... but by not having the parents of these babies in the U.S. in the first place. Shipping out the parents eliminates all future issues -- as you touched on above. There is also a need to address the issue of businesses who are paid by mothers so they can come to the U.S. and have their babies -- thus the child becoming a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. There certainly should be some type of law forbidding these types of businesses which effectively in some sense are a form of human trafficking. For example (and you touched on this as well), there are a significant number of businesses catering to Chinese mothers to do this. Time to shut down these businesses while additional considering not allowing women near to delivering a child to fly to the U.S. on tourist visas Most airlines state that you should not be flying in the late stages of pregnancy as well.
Yeh. Where it gets messy is that a lot of these illegals are coming in and knocking local women. Or citizen men knocking up illegal migrant women. Duh. Just the way life works. If you have both parents who are illegals and a baby is born of them here then you can at least take a shot at arguing what is being argued today, ie. that two illegals does not constitute subject to the jurisdiction of. Not saying where that will end. Just saying there is an argument for it. But if one of the parents is in fact an American citizen but the other party is an illegal, that baby is without doubt an American citizen. In that case, even if the baby was born in France of an American woman and a Mexica As you said, best to just keep their entry numbers down. Nothing wrong with reproducing but not when neither parent has been vetted or invited or approved.
If you want to see an issue pick up massive intensity overnight just wait until the lefties start arguing that if the court sides with Trump that the court could make the decision retroactive and it would impact the millions of children of illegals- all full grown now- who have been thinking that they are citizens because they were born here but now are subject to deportation. Note that I am not saying the court would do that but would leftie advocates have a basis for arguing that the Court would have the power to do that? Yes. The other thing that will whip it up would be if the case gets expedited review and the court hears it before midterms. My guess is that the court is going to rule that the president does not have the power to do that but Congress does have the power to define who is and is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. With the exception of diplomats which have their own language in the 14th amendment. That will become a YUGE campaign issue for the midterms. methinks.