Ending Birthright Citizenship

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Will I vote for President Trump again? You bet your ass I will. I've wanted this ANCHOR BABY crap to end forever. I don't believe it's even constitutional. It's not LAW. The 14th Amendment was NEVER intended to grant automatic citizenship to the children of people who have ILLEGALLY entered the United States and given birth whom are NOT US CITIZENS. It was written for SLAVES, and it has been BASTARDIZED.

-----------

President Trump Says He Is Still “Looking Seriously” at Ending Birthright Citizenship

In October 2018 President Trump told Axios in an exclusive interview that he plans to sign an executive order to remove the right to citizenship for babies of non-citizens and illegal aliens.

In 2015 candidate Trump claimed he did not need a constitutional amendment to end this practice.

In 2013 295,000 babies were born to unauthorized-immigrant parents making up 8% of all US births that year.

On Wednesday President Trump once again said he is looking seriously at ending birthright citizenship.

The Hill reported:

President Trump on Wednesday said his administration is once again seriously considering an executive order to end birthright citizenship months after several lawmakers cast doubt on his ability to take such action.

“We’re looking at that very seriously,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky. “Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land — walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby’s now a U.S. citizen.”

“We are looking at birthright citizenship very seriously,” he added. “It’s, frankly, ridiculous.”

The president proposed ending the practice that grants citizenship to those born in the United States during his 2016 presidential campaign. He revived the idea last year, saying he would sign an executive order to enact the change.

Numerous lawmakers, including several Republicans, quickly pushed back on the idea and argued Trump lacked the authority to make such a change using an executive order. They cited that birthright citizenship is a right enshrined under the 14th Amendment.

Trump responded to the criticism by saying birthright citizenship would be ended “one way or another.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/president-trump-says-he-is-still-looking-seriously-at-ending-birthright-citizenship/

[Kathianne]

It won't make me vote for him, but it's the right thing to do. Repeal the 14th!

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It won't make me vote for him, but it's the right thing to do. Repeal the 14th!
Well... curiosity killed the cat... what would it take to make you vote for him?

(I can't believe you'd actually vote for any of the crazy dems.)

[Kathianne]

Well... curiosity killed the cat... what would it take to make you vote for him?

(I can't believe you'd actually vote for any of the crazy dems.)

I'll have to see who's on the ballot or perhaps write someone in.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I'll have to see who's on the ballot or perhaps write someone in.
Evasive...

[Kathianne]

Evasive...
Not at all. I don't have a clue who will be on ballot, other than Trump.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Not at all. I don't have a clue who will be on ballot, other than Trump.
Yes... I asked what it would take for you to vote for Trump. What would he have to do? What could he do? You didn't answer that.

[Kathianne]

Yes... I asked what it would take for you to vote for Trump. What would he have to do? What could he do? You didn't answer that.

In fairness, I doubt there is anything he can do. He truly is what he ran as and has not changed. While he lies, (exaggerates would be kinder), about what he's done and some results, he never misrepresents himself.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

In fairness, I doubt there is anything he can do. He truly is what he ran as and has not changed. While he lies, (exaggerates would be kinder), about what he's done and some results, he never misrepresents himself.
OK... that's an answer... although I'm curious about these "lies." Can you give multiple examples of him lying?

[Kathianne]

OK... that's an answer... although I'm curious about these "lies." Can you give multiple examples of him lying?

I could, but am not going to bother. If you wish a list of many, google: 'trump lies and exaggerations' that should be a good start.

I don't like him, so I make my choices. I do not have to justify to you or anyone. I get to think and vote as I choose, as do you.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I could, but am not going to bother. If you wish a list of many, google: 'trump lies and exaggerations' that should be a good start.

I don't like him, so I make my choices. I do not have to justify to you or anyone. I get to think and vote as I choose, as do you.
Of course... I wasn't suggesting you didn't have a choice or was even trying to change your mind. I was just curious.

But google... c'mon Kath... google buries anything good about Trump pages and pages back, if you can find anything at all. I don't even use it for that. But if there's some opinion or blogger writing their garbage about him, it's on page one.

Sorry, I'll pass.

[Kathianne]

Of course... I wasn't suggesting you didn't have a choice or was even trying to change your mind. I was just curious.

But google... c'mon Kath... google buries anything good about Trump pages and pages back, if you can find anything at all. I don't even use it for that. But if there's some opinion or blogger writing their garbage about him, it's on page one.

Sorry, I'll pass.

Have to agree, you certainly can't find anything that might shake your faith for more than a moment when you only go through right wing search engines and deliberately avoid anything that challenges 'The Chosen One,' his words, not mine. ;) (Yes, I know he didn't mean that in a religious way, but it's telling nevertheless.)

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Have to agree, you certainly can't find anything that might shake your faith for more than a moment when you only go through right wing search engines and deliberately avoid anything that challenges 'The Chosen One,' his words, not mine. ;) (Yes, I know he didn't mean that in a religious way, but it's telling nevertheless.)
Nope, not playing games with you on this one, and I really don't like the sideways little swipe as if I'm some moron that blindly follows Trump. Several times, HERE, I've expressed my frustration and possible lack of support for him, so your comment is just a little snippy. Why do you have to do that? I haven't done it in this conversation so why did you? Comments like that are exactly why I spit back at people.

And google IS a filthy leftist cess pool that moves anything and everything slamming President Trump to the fore front, and YOU, KNOW IT. THAT is why I do, OCCASIONALLY, use a conservative search engine. It's not because I'm worried about "SHAKING MY FAITH," it's because I'm trying to ESCAPE GOOGLE'S EPIC LEFTIST BIAS.

[Kathianne]

Nope, not playing games with you on this one, and I really don't like the sideways little swipe as if I'm some moron that blindly follows Trump. Several times, HERE, I've expressed my frustration and possible lack of support for him, so your comment is just a little snippy. Why do you have to do that? I haven't done it in this conversation so why did you? Comments like that are exactly why I spit back at people.

And google IS a filthy leftist cess pool that moves anything and everything slamming President Trump to the fore front, and YOU, KNOW IT. THAT is why I do, OCCASIONALLY, use a conservative search engine. It's not because I'm worried about "SHAKING MY FAITH," it's because I'm trying to ESCAPE GOOGLE'S EPIC LEFTIST BIAS.

As I said, 'a moment.' I find your repeatedly asking me to find 'this' or 'that' and 'multiple examples' to be snippy also. We just irritate in different ways I guess.

Google is what it is, it tries to bury anything it doesn't like, acknowledged. Unless the topic is on the menu 'now' I tend to go through pages to find what is relevant, I don't take the top appearing. At least they are there. Not so much on the right wing search engines, they don't want to upset their readers with anything not in line with current right thought. Can't say I've used them much in past couple years, but must have taken a lot of scrubbing to find 'deficits' good! to put to top.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

As I said, 'a moment.' I find your repeatedly asking me to find 'this' or 'that' and 'multiple examples' to be snippy also. We just irritate in different ways I guess.

Google is what it is, it tries to bury anything it doesn't like, acknowledged. Unless the topic is on the menu 'now' I tend to go through pages to find what is relevant, I don't take the top appearing. At least they are there. Not so much on the right wing search engines, they don't want to upset their readers with anything not in line with current right thought. Can't say I've used them much in past couple years, but must have taken a lot of scrubbing to find 'deficits' good! to put to top.
You seem to get defensive quite easily these days.

And I'm sure you really enjoy being able to find so much dirt on Trump on google so easily, conveniently moved to the forefront just for the likes of Trump haters like you.

[Kathianne]

You seem to get defensive quite easily these days.

And I'm sure you really enjoy being able to find so much dirt on Trump on google so easily, conveniently moved to the forefront just for the likes of Trump haters like you.


Yeah, I've changed a whole lot. :rolleyes: Look, he's not my guy, never was. Happy that you got the man you want. I'm happy he's done as much for the economy as he has. I'm glad he makes liberals heads explode, as the NYT choosing to do this 1619 project, so I can bring the nonsense to education forums.

I can dislike and not vote for anyone I choose to. You may do the same.

If I am defensive, which I don't think is new-it's been since the last national election, you are totally insecure that maybe, just maybe this President is not quite what you thought. Deficits and Greenland and Red Flag Laws and 'loopholes' like gun shows background checks.

Then there's Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq and China and Russia...

[Kathianne]

A bit more to stew about:

hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/23/trump-congress-needs-engage-team-pass-gun-laws/

Trump: Congress Needs To “Engage With My Team” To Pass Gun Laws
ED MORRISSEYPosted at 9:21 am on August 23, 2019


Engage on what, exactly? After a week of contradictory statements, no one’s quite sure where Donald Trump stands on various components of new gun legislation. The only thing that seems certain is that Trump wants to take action, but perhaps doesn’t necessarily want to get out in front of it. In tweets last night, Trump announced that he’d just emerged from a meeting of stakeholders on the issue — but called on Congress to take action rather than offer a proposal:

...

He's not a gun aficionado, though one of his kids is. He also is pro-2nd amendment, the way most suburbanites are. Guns scare him, but heh! if you want them, you should have them, within reason.

The shootings, not just the 3 so close together, really bother him, I believe that. So do all those voters with the NRA, moreso I think than the $$$.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Yeah, I've changed a whole lot. :rolleyes: Look, he's not my guy, never was. Happy that you got the man you want. I'm happy he's done as much for the economy as he has. I'm glad he makes liberals heads explode, as the NYT choosing to do this 1619 project, so I can bring the nonsense to education forums.

I can dislike and not vote for anyone I choose to. You may do the same.

If I am defensive, which I don't think is new-it's been since the last national election, you are totally insecure that maybe, just maybe this President is not quite what you thought. Deficits and Greenland and Red Flag Laws and 'loopholes' like gun shows background checks.

Then there's Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq and China and Russia...
No, I'm not "insecure." That would be a personality trait which does not apply to me. Have I had reservations as to what he might do as far as the 2nd Amendment lately? Yeah, of course, why wouldn't I? He's gone from railing about protecting the 2nd Amendment at every one of his rallies to, "we have to do something, maybe red flag laws." That draws me back, and has nothing to do with "insecurity." If anything, it simply pisses me off.

We'll see what he does though. He's already said universal background checks are off the table, and I've heard comments that the red flag laws stuff was just throwing the rabid left a bone to chew on while he lets the heat die down and he ultimately does nothing.

[Gunny]

There is no right way to do the wrong thing. Something a Major once told me that stuck. The intent to enter the US illegally and give birth from the beginning is illegal.

We're being legal-loopholed and leftwingnut legislated from the bench out of a country.

[Kathianne]

There is no right way to do the wrong thing. Something a Major once told me that stuck. The intent to enter the US illegally and give birth from the beginning is illegal.

We're being legal-loopholed and leftwingnut legislated from the bench out of a country.

The 14th should have been repealed 50 years ago at best.

[Gunny]

The 14th should have been repealed 50 years ago at best.Or the intent of "born in" not misconstrued by politics.

I think the US Constitution for the most part is an awesome document. Can't say the same about the judiciary it created to support it.

[Kathianne]

Or the intent of "born in" not misconstrued by politics.

I think the US Constitution for the most part is an awesome document. Can't say the same about the judiciary it created to support it.

So you are for a living Constitution?

[Gunny]

So you are for a living Constitution?Not at all. I'm for obeying the laws in the one we have. I'm for Congress amending/adding/deleting whichever laws need it. Not some judge in the 9th District. I'm for not having unnecessary laws. Currently, we have laws for laws and every time somebody doesn't like something or common sense doesn't prevail (which is more often than not anymore) we get a new stupid law.

Most importantly, a law is only as good as its enforcement. Same as I always say about freedom. It's only as good as the ability to defend it.

In the case of immigration, the law is pretty clear; yet, leftwingnut justices and the left have ignored what is there if they don't like it. Every attempt to enforce it has been thwarted by some Dem justice ruling in favor of political flavor of the day instead of the what is written. A piece of paper can't fix THAT.

I saw a thread a few days ago where some leftwingnut judge ruled completely out of bounds and a judge in KC echoed the 9th District ruling. Employers of illegals cannot be punished for employing them as it violates freedom speech. THAT is a ruling? Based on WHAT? I don't see anywhere in any way, shape, nor form how speech has anything to do with hiring someone who is illegal to do work.

If THAT is the case, then filing a tax return, employers paying employee taxes is ALL unconstitutional. They're erasing accountability the rest of us are forced to endure by law in favor of current politics. That's NOT okay. But let white boy ME tell the government I'm not accountable to it financially and they'll take everything I own and it happens every day.

We're being punished for being white and we're being punished for being law-abiding citizens. If I was a Mexican none of that would apply to me except that my illegal activity is protected :rolleyes: