• 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

bruto said:
I would guess that there will remain at least a few tatters of the Constitution left, and that ex post facto laws might get into trouble. The Constitutional rule reaffirming birthright citizenship doesn't actually do much except to prevent laws from being made that abridge it. I suspect that if a new law were written to limit it, there would be an immediate constitutional challenge, and we'd be back to the court. But in any case, I think any law that limits birthright citizenship would have to apply only to babies born after the enactment of the law.

e.t.a. Assuming the Thomases of this world do not figure out another way to deem the Constitution itself unconstitutional. When the most blatantly, flagrantly corrupt Justice is in thrall to the most egregiously, floridly corrupt President, and it seems nobody has the gumption to stand up to Long Dong Silver and his posse, nothing is off the table.
Click to expand...
And remember that Thomas was nominated by Bush Sr, because he was also looking at trashing the country
 
Darat said:
It's a strange right, given the USA's history I can see why it came about but surely it's time the USA altered it?
Click to expand...
I don't see any compelling reason to. If nothing else, constitutionalized birthright citizenship avoids the possibility of a permanent non-citizen underclass, which does not seem like the kind of thing the leadership of the US is currently interested in avoiding.

Fundamentally the problem here is that people are looking for a well-grounded reason to confer the benefits and obligations of citizenship upon this baby, but not that one. That's just impossible to do, because they're ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ babies. How is "you were ◊◊◊◊ out of this womb, rather than that one" a better way of determining citizenship than "You were ◊◊◊◊ out on this side of the border, rather than that one"? It's better to just take a pragmatic view of the matter, rather than treat citizenship as some sacred halo that can only be placed upon deserving babies. This approach works pretty well, that approach works pretty well. It's all nonsense, built on a house of cards. Do whatever.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...
And that basic principle is no more self-justifying than the rule that is used in most of the Americas. The only strangeness you've identified in virtually unrestricted jus soli citizenship is that the idea is literally foreign to you.

I presume the USA already uses that principle for babies born by a USA citizen but outside of the USA?
Click to expand...
Yes, although it isn't the basic rule at play. We must grant those born here (with a handful of exceptions) citizenship. We may grant citizenship to others.
 
Last edited:
Resume said:
Her parents were here on student visas. She has dual citizenship.

The horror, the horror.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I don't see how she was an 'anchor baby' since her parents did not take any advantage from her US citizenship, as far as I can see, nor was that the reason she was born.

ETA: Multiply ninjaed.
 
Last edited:
Stephen Miller says the Trump administration will take “a hard look” at banning foreign pregnant women from the country

video in link

Miller: I know that some of the justices who worked on this, they think that they are so intelligent. There is no possible reading of the 14th amendment that applies to foreigners with foreign loyalties, foreign citizenship, foreign obligations, foreign everything

video in link
 
The White House
@WhiteHouse
Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship

1782899725967.jpeg
 
mumblethrax said:
And that basic principle is no more self-justifying than the rule that is used in most of the Americas. The only strangeness you've identified in virtually unrestricted jus soli citizenship is that the idea is literally foreign to you.


Yes, although it isn't the basic rule at play. We must grant those born here (with a handful of exceptions) citizenship. We may grant citizenship to others.
Click to expand...
I think it is more "self-justifying". If citizenship confers rights then requiring citizenship to confer those rights to someone else is one of the rights of citizenship.
 
Trump on "YMCA": "It became a 'monster' hit, again, 30 years after its original launch"
("YMCA" was released 48 years ago ... )

Donald J. Trump
@realDonald Trump
Village People singer Victor Willis is dead at 74. He was a great and happy guy who loved that I used his groups song, YMCA, at my Rallies.
It became a "monster" hit, again, 30 years after its original launch.
Many singers and groups wanted to get on board at the Rallies after all of the Rally Attendance Records were set - The crowds were, and are, enormous - But Victor and the group was there for us right from the beginning! They loved the action, and we loved them and their great and uplifting song.
We will think of Victor every time YMCA is played, like today, and all throughout this July Fourth Birthday week.
My condolences to his wonderful family and group, Victor Willis will be sorely missed, God Bless Him!!!
President DONALD J. TRUMP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

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