re: Trump to sign Executive Order ending birth right citizenship for kids of illegals on Day 1

quote:

---

The Supreme Court, starting with Won Kim Ark, has been pretty consistent about this. Illegals are subject to our jurisdiction (see: ones serving time in our prisons for crimes committed here).

---

They aren't subject to the selective service. They cannot be forced into military service like U.S. citizens. Why not?

What's necessary is taking action that challenges the status quo because it is needed and then get this issue back in front of the court in contemporary times for them to settle the 14th Amendment interpretation to clearly address our current circumstances.

Then we will know if a constitutional amendment is the necessary course of action.

quote:

---

They aren't subject to the selective service.

---

Irrelevant distinction

quote:

---

to settle the 14th Amendment interpretation

---

It's settled outside of the echo chamber.

What you're proposing is to reverse longstanding precedent and destabilize the system, not settle the system.

quote:

---

Then we will know if a constitutional amendment is the necessary course of action.

---

Why not just start there?

An EO is not going to work for reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitutional issues you're trying to address. There is no path for executive power to issue such an edict, and the EO would be disposed of on procedural/legal grounds long before any Constitutional issues were even discussed.

EVEN IF you could somehow argue an EO could legally do this, by the time it was ruled on, the DEMs would likely be in power after the 2028 election.

Look at the timeline on DACA

Early on in the admin, in 2017, the Trump admin attacked DACA.

The ultimate USSC ruling didn't come until June 2020, and that was after fast tracking it.

quote:

---

You're dismissive interpretation of the distinction but a distinction you cannot deny.

---

You can create any distinctions you wish, but their relevance is the important part of the analysis.

quote:

---

Citizens and foreigners are not subject to the same degrees of government jurisdiction

---

And if you read the case, that is literally not relevant to the discussion at all.

That case was ruled on by contemporaries of the people who passed the 14A, mind you. They also go into a very deep historical analysis.

quote:

---

And there is SO much richness in your assertion that challenging birthright citizenship and putting the issue to the courts would lead to "destabilization of the system."

---

Reversing precedent destabilizes the system by default.

You used bad wording ("settling") and they needed to be corrected.

quote:

---

Because you have to start somewhere and I and Trump can't make Congress magically address the issue.

---

Our Constitution is constructed the way it is for this very reason.

It's not supposed to be easy.

quote:

---

Congress and every president in office has been unwilling or unable, for whatever reasons, to effectively address border security.

---

We are not discussing "border security" ITT

quote:

---

So for those of us who demand the issue be resolved, waiting for Congress is allowing those entities who purposefully seek to perpetuate the status quo to win the issue.

---

So you desire to set fire to the Constitution to engage in autocracy?

I don't think that's the standards you want to commit to when the DEMs will regain power, possibly as soon as 2028

quote:

---

Whose resources, exactly?

---

The swamp, progressive state AGs and progressive lawfare firms like Perkins-Coie.

quote:

---

They are not lacking for money

---

Compared to the DOJ / US federal government? Worst case scenario you’re fighting a multi front war of attrition against an opponent with vastly inferior resources. By attacking on a wide front it ensures they have to choose which battles they have to sacrifice to hold critical fronts.

quote:

---

This needs a Constitutional Amendment

---

You’re still thinking one dimensionally. Defeating the globalist movement will require combined arms tactics. Whether they win one battle when something is declared unconstitutional in front of a strong conservative leaning USSC later on or not is less important than attacking on 100 fronts and pressing an outmatched opponent to break their ability and will to respond.

I’d coordinate with friendly state AGs like FL and AL who I’ve spoken with at events and per their own words are just waiting for coordination and leadership to help tie up additional resources and open new fronts. Now it’s the DOJ + friendly state AGs vs the swamp and blue AGs.

The quick decisive action approach is how DeSantis defeated the FL DNC and it simply works. The state party apparatus eventually becomes demotivated, hopeless and begins losing on all fronts after their rage and resources wear down.

End of the day my plan has 100 paths to success. Your plan is in effect to reenact the 2017 Trump plan with Thune playing Mitch McConnell and Ron Johnson playing Paul Ryan.

The GOPe doesn’t want most of Trumps agenda to succeed. They’re going to stall, talk on Fox News, and filibuster the next two years on immigration issues because the chamber of commerce who runs their wing of the party wants cheap labor as much as the DNC wanted Latino votes.

Maybe Trump can force them to take action on large scale deportation, removal of birth right citizenship and the wall and maybe he can’t, but I’m sure as hell not waiting on John Cornyn to get on board to begin taking the fight to the progressives particularly on the topic of immigration.

quote:

---

You can create any distinctions you wish, but their relevance is the important part of the analysis.

---

Correct, which would be debated and ruled on by the courts. What SFP finds irrelevant may not be what another deems irrelevant. It certainly appears to be a relevant distinction in the application of "jurisdiction." Perhaps you believe the intent was to allow any foreign national to have birth in the United States and for their child to automatically be conferred citizenship. I am sure the case will be made as fervently on each side of the argument as the other.

quote:

---

Our Constitution is constructed the way it is for this very reason.

It's not supposed to be easy.

---

No one said otherwise so you are addressing nothing. Political actors will use the means at their disposal to push the issue in any way they can.

quote:

---

So you desire to set fire to the Constitution to engage in autocracy?

---

LMAO. You have certainly adopted well to the hyperbolic rhetoric of the modern left.

They have used the 14th amendment as the excuse for birthright citizenship but it has never been tried in court. This will force that. Better now with this court than any other time.

Then 9th circuit issues a stay....just as cheaply. Then it just becomes theater and the legislators once again are off the hook because they don't have to do anything about it. And then when the pendulum swings back as it always does with a new POTUS he just trashes the EO's issued by Trump or whomever.

So now rather than catch me if you can in a corner of the board, the board gets yanked....if you are lucky or you you are surrounded by rooks , bishops, with the queen poised for the kill once one of them is sacrificed.

You've sacrificed your pawns as well as most of your better peices and, what in your scenario is your queen? And is the other side's queen on the board ? Also what will you do about the Rooks still out on the board simultaneously attacking and defending with a Knight slowly and methodically moving ever closer to hemming your king in?