- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If Trump is right on birthright E.O.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:00 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:00 am
This raises a few questions and I would like to take the pulse of the board.
1) What would/should happen to the citizenship of those who have already qualified this way?
2) Instead of full citizenship, would you be ok with granting at birth Legal Permanent Resident status (Green Card) instead of citizenship.
3) The 14th amendment deals with those born here and those who naturalize...what effect would/should this order have on naturalization?
1) What would/should happen to the citizenship of those who have already qualified this way?
2) Instead of full citizenship, would you be ok with granting at birth Legal Permanent Resident status (Green Card) instead of citizenship.
3) The 14th amendment deals with those born here and those who naturalize...what effect would/should this order have on naturalization?
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:01 am
19
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:03 am to GAAtty70
quote:They could apply through normal avenues.
1) What would/should happen to the citizenship of those who have already qualified this way?
quote:No.
2) Instead of full citizenship, would you be ok with granting at birth Legal Permanent Resident status (Green Card) instead of citizenship.
quote:Zero.
3) The 14th amendment deals with those born here and those who naturalize...what effect would/should this order have on naturalization?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:03 am to GAAtty70
I honestly don’t think it would hold up to court scrutiny.
If he really wants to change it, it should go through House and Senate.
At least that’s my initial thought.
If he really wants to change it, it should go through House and Senate.
At least that’s my initial thought.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:06 am to GAAtty70
1) they never had it, so they are technically as illegal as their parents
2) if they are productive adults, assuming they aren't dregs or prisoners, give them green cards
3) none
2) if they are productive adults, assuming they aren't dregs or prisoners, give them green cards
3) none
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:11 am to GAAtty70
quote:
If Trump is right on birthright E.O.
I believe he is right. Birthright citizenship has been the default potion of the executive branch. I do not believe the issue has been fully adjudicated. SOTUS has played around the edges but never fully addressed the issue of non-citizens dropping a baby in the U.S. and that baby becoming a citizen. It has always been the executive branch's position that they become citizens.
President Trump is looking to change the executive branch's position on "birth-right" citizenship.
quote:
1) What would/should happen to the citizenship of those who have already qualified this way?
Their status should remain as is because of the policy that was in practice at the time that their status was determined.
quote:
2) Instead of full citizenship, would you be ok with granting at birth Legal Permanent Resident status (Green Card) instead of citizenship.
No.
quote:
3) The 14th amendment deals with those born here and those who naturalize...what effect would/should this order have on naturalization?
It seems to me the legislative branch defines the naturalization process. That is up to congress. They make the immigration laws. The executive branch executes them. President Trump is simply looking to execute existing laws as his administration interprets them. SCOTUS will let him know if he is right or not.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:12 am to GAAtty70
I'm just going to say anyone residing in the U.S. illegally, and there are several ways that is accomplished, their child born here shouldn't be gifted with automatic citizenship.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:12 am to GAAtty70
Another question:
- If you remove the status of those who qualified at birth in the past, what happens to the citizenship or Green Card status of relatives who naturalized based upon the petitions of those former U.S. citizens?
- Are any of these folks entitled to due process in the courts before their status is revoked or is it done just by fiat?
- If you remove the status of those who qualified at birth in the past, what happens to the citizenship or Green Card status of relatives who naturalized based upon the petitions of those former U.S. citizens?
- Are any of these folks entitled to due process in the courts before their status is revoked or is it done just by fiat?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:12 am to GAAtty70
Yes he's right BUT the SC should rule....it should have never gotten to this point
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:15 am to GAAtty70
quote:
If you remove the status of those who qualified at birth in the past,
I don't believe this will happen so it's a non-issue IMO.
quote:
Are any of these folks entitled to due process in the courts before their status is revoked or is it done just by fiat?
It's my understanding that all people on U.S. soil are entitled to due process.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:15 am to GAAtty70
quote:
If you remove the status of those who qualified at birth in the past, what happens to the citizenship or Green Card status of relatives who naturalized based upon the petitions of those former U.S. citizens?
I am betting that any granted citizenship previous to this or legal status as a result will still be allowed to retain their status...
If he can get rid of the birthright citizenship, I would be willing to leave those already granted citizenship, as is... Damn good compromise in my opinion...
Now, I did not say "grant amnesty" to those here illegally..
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:17 am to GAAtty70
quote:
1) What would/should happen to the citizenship of those who have already qualified this way?
My guess is a compromise would be reached where they would be allowed to continue being citizens. The policy that illegals are not entitled to birthright citizenship would be deemed to not be retroactive in order to prevent the crisis of trying to determine the citizenship of tens of millions of people who have been presumed to be, and treated as, citizens for the past 40 years.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:18 am to GAAtty70
1. Sadly, the border hopping scum will keep it.
2. No. Send them back to the shitholes of their parents.
3. wat
2. No. Send them back to the shitholes of their parents.
3. wat
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:22 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:19 am to udtiger
quote:
1) they never had it, so they are technically as illegal as their parents
Good luck telling millions of life long american citizens they are now stateless.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:20 am to GAAtty70
1) Grandfathered in.
2) Yes.
3) None.
2) Yes.
3) None.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:21 am to Rebel
My thought is the Supreme Court only needs to interpret whether or not the executive order adheres to the original intent of “Subject to the Jurisdiction” part of the amendment.
That has never been addressed by the court, and now is the time. I think a reasonable, valid argument can be made either way, as the framers of the constitution don't provide many clues in which to ground the ambiguous statement on one side or the other of the argument. This court is a logical, solid, conservative majority court, and would provide a reasoned ruling, if this is, in fact, argued before the court.
That has never been addressed by the court, and now is the time. I think a reasonable, valid argument can be made either way, as the framers of the constitution don't provide many clues in which to ground the ambiguous statement on one side or the other of the argument. This court is a logical, solid, conservative majority court, and would provide a reasoned ruling, if this is, in fact, argued before the court.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:21 am to GAAtty70
the big debate is when the 14th Amendment was enacted, was it for the slaves that had come over? Nobody really knows but the timing makes you suspect that is what it was really about. NOT the illegals coming over.
Bold move by Trump with the "caravan invasion"on the way.
Bold move by Trump with the "caravan invasion"on the way.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:22 am to GAAtty70
quote:
1) What would/should happen to the citizenship of those who have already qualified this way?
Grandfathered in.
quote:
2) Instead of full citizenship, would you be ok with granting at birth Legal Permanent Resident status (Green Card) instead of citizenship.
No.
quote:
3) The 14th amendment deals with those born here and those who naturalize...what effect would/should this order have on naturalization?
None. The SCOTUS has already ruled on permanent residents a long time ago. Where they have NOT ruled is on illegal immigrants.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:22 am to GumboPot
quote:
I believe he is right. Birthright citizenship has been the default potion of the executive branch. I do not believe the issue has been fully adjudicated. SOTUS has played around the edges but never fully addressed the issue of non-citizens dropping a baby in the U.S. and that baby becoming a citizen. It has always been the executive branch's position that they become citizens.
Non-Citizens here legally the court decided in 1898
Illegal has not been decided.
Given the original intent which can be derived by the writters of the 14th would lead one to believe that illegals would not be covered.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:24 am to GAAtty70
quote:
1) What would/should happen to the citizenship of those who have already qualified this way?
2) Instead of full citizenship, would you be ok with granting at birth Legal Permanent Resident status (Green Card) instead of citizenship.
3) The 14th amendment deals with those born here and those who naturalize...what effect would/should this order have on naturalization?
1. Grandfathered in.
2. No.
3. None that I know of.
This is an issue that has needed attention for a long time. SCOTUS will no doubt rule on this. Congress will never touch this issue.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:24 am to Rebel
quote:
I honestly don’t think it would hold up to court scrutiny.
If he really wants to change it, it should go through House and Senate.
At least that’s my initial thought.
If SCOTUS rules for birthright, EO is null
If SCOTUS rules against birthright, the law is null until Congress goes back and rewrites the law. EO stands.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News