• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump's Second Term

I have no opinion about "the current situation". I think the scenario of someone who is ineligible for immigration or refugee status, or has entered the country illegally, is "extreme" - i.e., sufficient - enough to warrant abridging birthright citizenship.

I have reached this opinion in perfect lockstep with the Trump administration and the network of white nationalists who prop it up. There is nothing to read into here.
 
No. 156 of the 193 countries in the UN recognize Palestine as a state.
Okay, so his children wouldn't be stateless, regardless of where they're born, since Palestine is recognized as a state by the majority of countries. He's only "stateless" in so far as he chose to emigrate to a country that doesn't recognize his state.
 
Yes, ◊◊◊◊ the constitution.
We already have a substantial body of law and precedent prescribing circumstances under which constitutional rights may be legitimately abridged. I don't see why we can't do for birthright citizenship the same kind of thing we already do for speech, association, and even bearing arms.
 
So you think Ireland, Finland, and France are all fascist regimes, but this was never a problem for you until the US decided to follow suit.

Let me know when you're on board with how Ireland, Finland, and France regulate firearms and maybe I'll take that bait.

And this isn't being done by the U.S. It's being done by the fascist regime currently in charge of the U.S.

In fact, the majority of Americans support birthright citizenship.

So please, don't conflate "the U.S." with a minority of reactionary, racist freaks.
 
Okay, so his children wouldn't be stateless, regardless of where they're born, since Palestine is recognized as a state by the majority of countries. He's only "stateless" in so far as he chose to emigrate to a country that doesn't recognize his state.
No, his children wouldn't be stateless because children born in a country that doesn't flout international law can't be stateless.
 
In Switzerland we'll be having a national referendum later this year on the question of massively restricting the use of fireworks on the grounds that (a) there are injuries, (b) animals and lots of people are disturbed by them, (c) they pollute, and (d) they're a pain in the arse. Will be interesting to see how it goes.

Just to head off any comments about Swiss direct democracy, the people will also be voting that day on the financing of the state pension system and a couple of other more weighty topics.
 
We already have a substantial body of law and precedent prescribing circumstances under which constitutional rights may be legitimately abridged. I don't see why we can't do for birthright citizenship the same kind of thing we already do for speech, association, and even bearing arms.

Using your vast knowledge in Constitutional law, walk us through what "abridging" the 14th amendment would look like.
 
The basic principle in most countries is that your parents or at least one has to be a legal citizen (rather than only a legal resident/visitor) of the country for you to be able to be a citizen. I presume the USA already uses that principle for babies born by a USA citizen but outside of the USA?
Ireland used to be a jus soli country too until Goebbels McDowell introduced a referendum to change it and lied through his teeth using dog whistles about anchor babies during the campaign.
 
Acting AG Todd Blanche: "Everybody should agree that it's a violation of our laws if your intent in coming here if you're pregnant is to have a child to become a US citizen because of our now laws. And so what we have to do as the DOJ is make sure HSI agents and the FBI are focused on stopping that."
This is from an acting AG, right? A person who nominally has some grasp of what laws are and how they work? Yet it's a person who thinks it would be a "violation of our laws" if someone arranged for their child to take advantage of a law which has stood for over 150 years. ("Our now laws" indeed. LOL. It's been the law since before anyone you ever knew was born.)

You can get mad about people exploiting legal loopholes, sure. But no, you do not get to say they're a violation of the law. The entire point of a legal loophole is that they are not a violation of the law.

How did someone that stupid get to be in a positio... oh, wait.
 
Trump on Panama Canal: We did a good job in Venezuela and we’re doing equally as well with the Islamic Republic of Iran. China is planning to take over the Panama Canal and we won’t let that happen.

video in link

Trump: I even had a conversation with Theodore Roosevelt. I asked how do you feel about the fact that the Democrats gave the Panama Canal away to Panama for $1

video in link

Trump: "It was the most expensive thing we ever built, and it was also the most profitable thing we ever built. That's a nice combination. A little bit like Venezuela. We're actually doing equally as well with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Maybe you've heard of it?"

video in link
 
Last edited:
Trump on Medal of Honour: There are very few people that have them, you know, I want to give one to myself, but they tell me and I'm not allowed to. My son over here, both of them. I said, I'd love to give one of them to me. What have I done that to deserve it and they couldn't think of anything. so I'm not happy with them today.

video in link
 
Trump: By the way, on July 4th, it’s going to be approximately 107 degrees out, and I’m gonna go and I’m gonna make a really long speech just to show that I can do anything.

video in link
Oh please, please . . .

If nothing else, we'll get to see the fake tough guy two-handing his 16oz bottle of water over and over, before keeling over from heat stroke.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom