The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > News & Political Discussion > Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 30, 2018, 12:33   #1
V guy
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
V guy's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 16,463
14th Dead

Trump announced, that by Executive Action, he will cancel the automatic citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment, that has been so misinterpreted and bastardized over the years.

The 14th Amendment was passed to give citizenship to African born, former slaves after the civil war, who were brought here from Africa to be slaves, and their children, who were born here. It covered them all, AND NO ONE ELSE.

for decades, "animals", communists, thieves, liars, degenerates, the squalid and the felons, masquerading as the "educated progressives", have said that it applies to ANY illegal alien, who comes to this country, and squats out a kid.............. who is then instantly a citizen.

HIGH BULLSHIT

Trump is going to issue an Executive Order stating that.............hopefully back to 1964, the date of Ted Kennedy's Immigration reform bill, that if you are not a citizen, then your kids are not citizens.

The Senate is going to consider a similar bill, introduced Bill by Lindsay Graham. and the House will also pass this.

It will all go to the Supreme Court for adjudication.

This news, and actual implementation of this Proclamation, may actually kill Iceberg off................. because of the stress and shock and outrage that this news itself creates in her.

We need one more vote at SCOTUS, just to be safe that no one backs out of this case. Iceberg is it.

Kavanaugh may want to try to clean up his coattails or maybe even Roberts. We need to replace Iceberg and maybe Breyer, for sure.



Victory, truth and justice will come as a result of this act, to cut off the illegals votes from 1964 forward, and deport the rest of these scurilous bastards, to where they came from, to comitt felonies back home, with their training learned here.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 12:43   #2
Jarhead504
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65022
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New Orleans Area,LA
Posts: 3,210
When can an EO remove an article from The Constitution?

Asking for a friend.

Jarhead
Jarhead504 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 13:00   #3
medicmike
Registered
Contributor
 
medicmike's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 3183
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Florence, OR
Posts: 6,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarhead504 View Post
When can an EO remove an article from The Constitution?

Asking for a friend.

Jarhead
^^^^This...it won't make it through the courts.
__________________
"Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker at Lexington Green

“The great Gaels of Ireland are the men that God made mad,
For all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad.”
― G.K. Chesterton, The Ballad of the White Horse
medicmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 13:09   #4
hardheaded
Senior Member
Silver Contributor
 
hardheaded's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 27964
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 824
The EO can not repeal the 14th any more than oboma could eradicate the 2nd
The 14th should be taken as written and be limited to the slaves as intended

Stop the free sh!t and suddenly Mexico will look good to the criminal invaders
__________________
Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.
Thomas Jefferson
hardheaded is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 13:29   #5
V guy
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
V guy's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 16,463
The 14th was so ambiguous, that it was able to be misinterpreted by assholes, and according to legal advice, both Congress that controls immigration and the POTUS can correct it via executive action and/or, Congressional action.

Several SCOTUS decisions in the past have not clarified it at all.

It is proven ambiguous, as the intention has been mis-read by assholes and the SCOTUS,if it even gets there, can refuse to hear it, uphold a lower court ruling, or decide to take the case and clarify it.

Like the gun issue, we just need a good court to make sure justice is restored to our Republic.

No one ever intended for illegals to have children who were citizens, only SLAVES.

In fact, only naturalized citizens can have children who are citizens, as did my German, Russian and English Great Grand and, grandparents did.

NO MAS, ever.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 13:33   #6
Right Side Up
Old Fart
Silver Contributor
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,424
If Trump signs it it will be only done as a publicity stunt. Totally unconstitutional. It'll get slapped down quicker than a 10 dollar whore.
Right Side Up is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 14:15   #7
Skilter
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 1021
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,487
It's kind of a brilliant move.

I don't know who his Constitutional lawyer is now, but whoever it is ... he/she is doing a great job.

In actuality, he is using his EO to push the Leg. Branch to do their job. He is setting up things so that it either goes to Congress or through a judiciary process to get things solidified again so that he can push.

It's a Constitutional move. Quite nicely done if you ask me. Of course the MSM will not take it as such, but as a political scientist and looking at it... pretty smart.

Trump is very much a Jacksonian. But, 98% of America doesn't even understand what that means.
__________________
Skilter
Native Texan

Illegitimi Non Carborundum
--------------------------------------------
M 7:7-14 tells you all you need to know.
Skilter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 14:55   #8
justashooter
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 5967
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: york, pa.
Posts: 8,332
dude knows how to control the news. if he gets another supreme pick this is doable. "wong kim ark" is not a strong precedent for enablement of children born to illegals, which are a reasonable target.

kim's parents were legal immigrants, so the decision should not be applicable to children of illegals or tourists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...._Wong_Kim_Ark
__________________
If the concept of heading on down to the local Home Depot and transforming $100 worth of random pipe bits into a killing machine doesn’t appeal to you, you’re a frikkin' pansy. Also, you’re probably sane and will live significantly longer than I will.

Nonetheless you disgust me, and I take comfort in the knowledge that your obituary will be nowhere near as humorous as mine.


The next time I hear "THE RANGE IS NOW HOT", it just wont be the same.

Max tried another question. "What sort of people live about here?"
"In THAT direction," the Jin said, waving its right paw round, "lives a Han: And in THAT direction," waving the other paw, "lives a Ming Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad."
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Max remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Jin: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Max.
"You must be," said the Jin, "or you wouldn't have come here."
justashooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 15:06   #9
Whydah
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 74237
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mid-Atlantic Region
Posts: 972
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States......"

The key is "jurisdiction thereof" and thats what President Trump is hanging his hat on. If someone is here illegally and not a citizen, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but of the country they are citizens of.

No doubt a leftist court will throw out his EO. But I don't think thats the end of it. The SCOTUS will rule eventually. Aside from stopping this anchor baby insanity, the best part is how heads are exploding among the socialists!
Whydah is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 17:26   #10
justashooter
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 5967
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: york, pa.
Posts: 8,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydah View Post
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States......"

The key is "jurisdiction thereof" and thats what President Trump is hanging his hat on. If someone is here illegally and not a citizen, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but of the country they are citizens of.

No doubt a leftist court will throw out his EO. But I don't think thats the end of it. The SCOTUS will rule eventually.
it matters not what they have, but what they have not, which is any kind of legal status in USA. SCOTUS would prolly accept an "children of legal residents and citizens only" interpretation. once ginsberg is dead, and someone else placed, it's a sure thing.
__________________
If the concept of heading on down to the local Home Depot and transforming $100 worth of random pipe bits into a killing machine doesn’t appeal to you, you’re a frikkin' pansy. Also, you’re probably sane and will live significantly longer than I will.

Nonetheless you disgust me, and I take comfort in the knowledge that your obituary will be nowhere near as humorous as mine.


The next time I hear "THE RANGE IS NOW HOT", it just wont be the same.

Max tried another question. "What sort of people live about here?"
"In THAT direction," the Jin said, waving its right paw round, "lives a Han: And in THAT direction," waving the other paw, "lives a Ming Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad."
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Max remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Jin: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Max.
"You must be," said the Jin, "or you wouldn't have come here."
justashooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 17:56   #11
357ross
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 47543
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 5,151
This is a brilliant move on Trump's part. It guarantees this vaguely worded amendment ends up in scotus quickly.
357ross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 19:27   #12
Impala_Guy
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55819
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Gamecock Country
Posts: 3,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by 357ross View Post
This is a brilliant move on Trump's part. It guarantees this vaguely worded amendment ends up in scotus quickly.
I dont think its ambiguous at all. "Subject to the jurisdiction of" doenst include illegal aliens and the kids they squirt out while they are here illegally.
__________________
Don't spread our wealth around, spread our work ethic.........
Impala_Guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 20:38   #13
easttex
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 20438
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 3,439
If he moves forward with it, and it winds up before SCOTUS, I will curious to see how those constitutionalist judges he's placed on the Court rule on the matter.
__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.

Molon labe
easttex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 20:39   #14
KoKodog
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 31665
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: on top of a wind swept ridge
Posts: 5,716
this will force the issue to clarify the 14th above and beyond any doubt

and it is about time it is clarified

and yes the ruling must go back retroactively to 1964, the date of Ted Kennedy's Immigration reform bill

there will be lots of shit-slinging about it but it is the only way it can be done in a fair and just way

any illegal anchor baby and their own children, grandchildren, great ..... wishing to stay must apply for citizenship, show proof of gainful employment, may not be on welfare, and will not have voting rights

no voting rights must be a key factor, without that key factor there are no teeth to the ruling
__________________
Far better it is to dare mighty things,
than to take refuge with those timid spirits
that know neither victory, nor defeat.
Teddy Roosvelt

Pray for peace, but prepare for war.
Winston Churchill
KoKodog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 21:21   #15
Right Side Up
Old Fart
Silver Contributor
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardheaded View Post
The EO can not repeal the 14th any more than oboma could eradicate the 2nd
The 14th should be taken as written and be limited to the slaves as intended

What you say is true, but it's a double edged sword. Anti-gunners have argued before that "arms" for the use of self defense was only intended for blacks. (The civil rights legislation right after the war was rolled over into the Fourteenth Amendment).
Right Side Up is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 22:51   #16
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoKodog View Post
this will force the issue to clarify the 14th above and beyond any doubt

and it is about time it is clarified
...
no voting rights must be a key factor, without that key factor there are no teeth to the ruling
yes.

"14th, meet the 2nd" --

if they get to let in illegal alien invaders to disenfranchise americans, using anchor babies to import their "families".

then we get our machine guns back to use them to defend ourselves and our way of life from disenfranchisement.

it is time to repeal all federal gun control acts, as not applicable to individual freedom, liberty, and right to possess and use any firearms, as codified under the 2A.
__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.
G1user is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30, 2018, 22:56   #17
G1user
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6546
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydah View Post
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States......"

The key is "jurisdiction thereof" and thats what President Trump is hanging his hat on. If someone is here illegally and not a citizen, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but of the country they are citizens of.

No doubt a leftist court will throw out his EO. But I don't think thats the end of it. The SCOTUS will rule eventually. Aside from stopping this anchor baby insanity, the best part is how heads are exploding among the socialists!
the anchor babies do not get here by magic stork.

illegal aliens enter, and squirt out said anchor baby, as an end run around immigration law.

the baby is the chattel property of the parents, the parents' country/jurisdiction of origin.

__________________
"if you cannot trust people with freedom, then how can you trust people with power?" It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.

Last edited by G1user; October 30, 2018 at 23:02.
G1user is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 31, 2018, 04:28   #18
357ross
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 47543
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 5,151
This stupid argument about how the immigration system is broken needs to end. The system isn't broken, it's been ignored by two political parties for 50 years. The law can't work if it isn't enforced, and this EO will bring this to a head and force congress to do it's job.
357ross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 31, 2018, 11:05   #19
V guy
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
V guy's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 16,463
What nation on earth would say that the use of genitals, by illegals, is the ruling factor in citizenship.

We and Canada are about the only assholes who do this in error, and that is about to come to a screeching halt over the next few years, and that is good.

Iceberg will be gone.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 01, 2018, 13:38   #20
nwobhm
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
nwobhm's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 9580
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 9,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impala_Guy View Post
I dont think its ambiguous at all. "Subject to the jurisdiction of" doenst include illegal aliens and the kids they squirt out while they are here illegally.
This is where it's going to get interesting. States like California that issued DL to illegals have created "Subject to the jurisdiction of".
nwobhm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 01, 2018, 20:21   #21
AliYahu
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 11084
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,254
The author of 14A stated repeatedly that it did not apply to non-citizens.

Eli
AliYahu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 01, 2018, 20:50   #22
Right Side Up
Old Fart
Silver Contributor
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,424
Are you talking about John Bingham? I've read a lot about his work, but don't specifically recall that position. Have a source I can read? Thanks.
Right Side Up is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 01, 2018, 21:08   #23
cotter
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23754
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 854
How can the illegals benefit (anchor baby) while actively committing a crime? When foreign dignitaries have babies here are their children subject to this 'birthright citizenship' also? Come in legally on vacation, stay once you pop a kid out?
Illegal aliens cannot buy firearms either...
cotter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 01, 2018, 21:37   #24
ExCdnSoldierInTx
Old Fart
Gold Contributor
 
ExCdnSoldierInTx's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 65552
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Central Merca
Posts: 7,458
I think he can, right now, legally move to put up massive financial and legal barriers to birth tourism. And deny visas to women past 35th week in pregnancy?

Plus push to define “under the jurisdiction thereof” or whatever the exact wording is. I was struck dumb to hear it explained in a common sense manner to me and how the Constitutional Amendmend was discussed and debated on the
House Floor before it was passed. These words were put there for the exact reason we are having this conversation now, to disqualify non citizens and non residents children the rights of citizenship, period. Of that there is absolutely NO doubt.
Trump is RIGHT. Now convince CNN, the final arbiter of all things political in this Nation.
__________________
" .... basically you'd have to take them head-on, penetrating 4-6 'yotas per round, to avoid wasting ammo." - Enquiring Minds 11/15/15
ExCdnSoldierInTx is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 02, 2018, 09:05   #25
AliYahu
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 11084
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,254
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Side Up View Post
Are you talking about John Bingham? I've read a lot about his work, but don't specifically recall that position. Have a source I can read? Thanks.
Jacob Howard, read the speech here in the Congressional Record: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...3.db&recNum=11

“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 accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Eli
AliYahu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 02, 2018, 10:47   #26
V guy
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
V guy's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 16,463
ORIGINAL INTENT

When the 14th was passed, HOW DID YOU GET TO NORTH AMERICA?

Not by aircraft, not by ocean steamer.

You only got here on a sail driven wooden ship; one that came from across the pond. It took weeks to get here, if it did not sink.

There was not a hint that persons would show up, in one day, and drop a kid as an anchor baby.

Had that idea even been imagined the entire Amendment would have been written differently. The Irish had already begun their immigration and the Germans were about to come; Russians came later; all came by ship.

Progressives, around 1915 were going insane about the arrival of the immigrants, and wanted them gone.

Intent it is. There was no intent to allow illegal aliens to arrive in a day or to walk across the border by the thousands, and dump a kid, creating an anchor baby.

Americans are not stupid. Only the so called modern interpretation of the 14ths AS A "GOTCHA"--- YOU FRIKKIN CONSERVATIVES, IS STUPID.

The SCOTUS will have to recognize the travel time argument, to properly understand original intent.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 02, 2018, 13:49   #27
KoKodog
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 31665
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: on top of a wind swept ridge
Posts: 5,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by V guy View Post
ORIGINAL INTENT

When the 14th was passed, HOW DID YOU GET TO NORTH AMERICA?

Not by aircraft, not by ocean steamer.

You only got here on a sail driven wooden ship; one that came from across the pond. It took weeks to get here, if it did not sink.

There was not a hint that persons would show up, in one day, and drop a kid as an anchor baby.


Had that idea even been imagined the entire Amendment would have been written differently. The Irish had already begun their immigration and the Germans were about to come; Russians came later; all came by ship.

Progressives, around 1915 were going insane about the arrival of the immigrants, and wanted them gone.

Intent it is. There was no intent to allow illegal aliens to arrive in a day or to walk across the border by the thousands, and dump a kid, creating an anchor baby.

Americans are not stupid. Only the so called modern interpretation of the 14ths AS A "GOTCHA"--- YOU FRIKKIN CONSERVATIVES, IS STUPID.

The SCOTUS will have to recognize the travel time argument, to properly understand original intent.

one side of my family tree came here around 1713, stepped off the ship in Philadelphia, we fought in every war and worked hard for a living and paid taxes like most everyone else

and just like the Constitution and bill of rights original intent is the basis for law in our republic it must be considered for reading the 14th
__________________
Far better it is to dare mighty things,
than to take refuge with those timid spirits
that know neither victory, nor defeat.
Teddy Roosvelt

Pray for peace, but prepare for war.
Winston Churchill
KoKodog is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 02, 2018, 14:10   #28
Right Side Up
Old Fart
Silver Contributor
 
Right Side Up's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 43
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliYahu View Post
Jacob Howard, read the speech here in the Congressional Record: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...3.db&recNum=11

“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 accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Eli
Thanks. Had not read that before.
Right Side Up is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 04, 2018, 11:22   #29
V guy
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
V guy's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10282
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: miami
Posts: 16,463
Persons who were pregnant generally did not board a ship, bound for the USA in 1866.
It was a long hard voyage by wooden ship, and if anyone gave birth, the likelyhood of death for both mother and child were high.

Ships foundered and sank in storms all the time back then.


Anchor babies?

THEY DID NOT EXIST.

Immigrants procreated here, or brought in kids who survived the voyage, and who were also immigrants.

Thousands of persons crossing the border from Mexico, did not happen. There was no difference between Mexico and the USA back then, frankly speaking.
The WAR of 1848 was still fresh in minds back then, too.


Anchor babies were never conceived of in 1866, by SCOTUS or the Congress, as a means for a criminal illegal alien to attain a right to remain in the USA.

"Anchor Baby" is the pure bullshit invention, of a Che Gueverra style Marxist/Progressive.

It is an illegal unconstitutional tool in the hands of communist revolutionaries who are slowly building up to fighting a civil war, armed by 2030.

Last edited by V guy; November 05, 2018 at 10:58.
V guy is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2018 The FAL Files