Started By
Message

re: Trump Releases 11-Point Campaign Plan. Are These Feasible?

Posted on 10/31/23 at 8:58 am to
Posted by POTUS2024
Member since Nov 2022
11717 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 8:58 am to
Ann Coulter has gone over the anchor baby thing many times:

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)

Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement - who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.

Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.

Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:
"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."

In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.
It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.


An EO is sufficient to overcome this - because it was never real to begin with. A footnote is not law.
Posted by SuperOcean
Member since Jun 2022
3340 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 8:59 am to
quote:

Trump said he will impose a total naval embargo ON CARTELS!


This would be difficult but watching a movie "cocaine shark" would be cool after the navy found one sub and blew it up

He said he'll order the Department of Defense to inflict maximum damage on CARTEL leadership and operations, designate CARTELS as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and choke off CARTEL access to the global financial system.


This would be more effective if it doesn't mean War with mexico and another interment camp situation
This post was edited on 10/31/23 at 9:00 am
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
262334 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 8:59 am to
quote:


Looks like a good list,


Its not a bad list, its just missing all the details that make it feasible.

They seem more like goals than plans, and we know how his plans seem to stall...
Posted by lake chuck fan
westlake
Member since Aug 2011
9302 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:00 am to
I like most of it, but the drugs are coming thru the border from Mexico. Navy won't be much help in the desert.
Posted by rmnldr
Member since Oct 2013
38252 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:01 am to
quote:

This seems like a solid plan. Whats Rons stance on this? Let them contunue as is? Or will he copy this


You already know the answer and are being obtuse
Posted by Jack Daniel
In the bottle
Member since Feb 2013
25642 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:02 am to
Where is the, win a rigged election, plan?
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124372 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:02 am to
quote:

but the drugs are coming thru the border from Mexico. Navy won't be much help in the desert.
99% of illegal fentanyl comes from China to Mexico.
Posted by MFn GIMP
Member since Feb 2011
19489 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:06 am to
quote:

So executive orders can overrule constitutional provisions now? Good to know,

No but it would set up a SCOTUS hearing on it.
Posted by SDVTiger
Cabo San Lucas
Member since Nov 2011
74587 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:07 am to
quote:

You already know the answer



Yes I realize he just copies Trump and fly illegals into the country. First Class
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
262334 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:07 am to
quote:

99% of illegal fentanyl comes from China to Mexico.


Would continue even with a billion dollar naval campaign
Posted by ThuperThumpin
Member since Dec 2013
7417 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:09 am to
quote:

99% of illegal fentanyl comes from China to Mexico.


I guess I having trouble envisioning how this works even with Mexico's help or approval much less with out it. We are going to stop and search every ship, every container entering Mexico's ports?
Posted by aggressor
Austin, TX
Member since Sep 2011
8714 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:13 am to
I'm good with all of it, I just don't think he has a serious plan to implement it much less the people to execute it. He's only got 1 term which means he has to hit the ground running and be hyper effective right off the bat too which is a pipe dream.

If you actually care about getting things done there is a guy who is great at that but he isn't as good at memes. If Trump wins I'll certainly cheer for him to succeed I just don't see it. Of course I don't see a path for him to win the General anyway without GA and AZ so it's all moot.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124372 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:16 am to
quote:

This would be more effective if it doesn't mean War with mexico and another interment camp situation
Indeed.
It would optimally include Mexican cooperation.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124372 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:19 am to
quote:

We are going to stop and search every ship, every container entering Mexico's ports?
Assuming zero intel, I guess that would be the case.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
262334 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:22 am to
quote:


I guess I having trouble envisioning how this works even with Mexico's help or approval much less with out it.


Would never work.

Its a pipe dream.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
119176 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:24 am to
quote:

An EO wouldn't necessarily challenge any case.


It would trigger a lawsuit. A lawsuit may or may not get a federal judge to issue an injunction stopping the EO until the lawsuit makes it through the judicial system.

It's the only power the executive has.

The legislative can step in and solve the matter much more quickly.
Posted by RealityWinsOut
Member since Oct 2023
1454 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:26 am to
Depends on support from Congress. His first go around Congress back stabbed him.

I don't care for 10 and 11. Seems like "quick fixes" not cures. And why are we having to give up saving federal lands to house illegals and clean up the messes that progs created. He needs to move homeless and rest to Dem cities and force them to figure it out.
Posted by RealityWinsOut
Member since Oct 2023
1454 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:30 am to
quote:

It would trigger a lawsuit. A lawsuit may or may not get a federal judge to issue an injunction stopping the EO until the lawsuit makes it through the judicial system.

At least gets something moving. Better than what we are dealing with now.

At minimum I want a law that no illegal nor refugee can EVER become a citizen. "Path to Citizenship" needs to stop for these people. Legalization is one thing but not voting rights. And DLs should have status marked for voting purposes.

Take that out of the equation and Dems will become border hawks.
Posted by RealityWinsOut
Member since Oct 2023
1454 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:38 am to
I wonder if he still wants to reevaluate our involvement in international orgs like UN and nato. Also he needs to create an investigation into anti-American NGOs and I want to see the Soros family sent to the gulags.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
262334 posts
Posted on 10/31/23 at 9:43 am to
quote:

I'm good with all of it, I just don't think he has a serious plan to implement it much less the people to execute it


Theyre not bad ideas as stand alone, but theyre impossible to enforce so they are literal pipe dreams.
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram