They'd be in a place where they speak the language, would have jobs, and would be safe in order to rebuild their lives. Instead they turn that down to continue on a dangerous 1000 mile journey to a country that might not even let them in due to the fact that they have shown to be economic migrants, not legitimate refugees. The fact is they'd be better off taking Mexico's offer, and if they were legitimate refugees, they would. For example, if you are in the middle of a forest claiming to be freezing and starving to death and someone came by and offered you food and shelter would you tell them no? I mean if you told them thanks for the offer, but you are heading to a town 100 miles away where they had better food and better shelter....what would that person think of you? They'd probably think you were lying when you said you were in need.
That the circumstances today are very different now compared to when the 14th amendment was passed, to me, further argues that we should think about clarifying how the 14th amendment should apply given our current immigration laws. I think excluding children of illegal immigrants is entirely sensible, but I’m open to being persuaded otherwise.
That clarification would come from the SCOTUS and the wording on the 14th doesn't seem to give THAT much room for interpretation. I posted the argument those who want to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants are rolling with, but I don't think that they'll convince people that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "not subject to a foreign power". The purpose of that part of the 14th amendment was to reverse the Dred Scott decision, it was meant to protect the children of slaves and declare that they were natural born citizens. IMO that case against birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would fail.
I think what you're asking for is a change not a clarification. The Supreme Court can (and probably will) clarify if the Amendment applies to illegal immigrants' children. It will be hard for them imo to overturn over a century of practice based on the omission of textual instruction. If you want something explicitly spelled out, that's a constitutional amendment. That's 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4 of the states. If that's possible at all, the Republicans would have to give up major political concessions to buy the necessary votes from Democrats in the Congress and the states. Even if Democratic decision-makers thought it was a sensible change, Trump has made immigration so highly charged politically as to make consensus nigh impossible. As to what is sensible, I'll only make this argument to you: if this is the only change that comes into effect and the population of 12 million illegal aliens persists despite Trump's efforts, that's going to be a lot of state-less babies that are going to be born in this country. And that illegal population will boom like crazy. If this is a change we ever make, it should be made after illegal entry is solved and after the large illegal population is solved.
Have to read the entire twitter thread... trump supporter jack prosobiec tries to argue trump's point that the 14th amendment authors didn't really mean birthright citizenship... and crushes the argument
So, if Trump is able to do this, the next Democratic president can modify the 2nd amendment via executive order, right? Or, a president can modify the 1st amendment and take away our freedoms of speech, religion, right to mobilize, press? Very slippery slope if he actually goes through with this and is allowed.
President Trump cannot light the Constitution of fire via executive fire...... Even the spineless Paul Ryan said it cannot happen. Usually it is pretty obvious the angle Trump is taking with his hyperbole, but his call on this one is perplexing to me because I thought he had this voting part of the populous wrapped up. All this hypothetically does is fire up hispanics and other immigrants to show up at the polls.
I'm beginning to think the orange one gets a hard on every time it's something that President Obama did with a EO.
I think it says a lot about our nation that possible asylum seekers would be willing to travel hundreds or thousands more miles to seek asylum in our great nation. If you could choose where to seek asylum, would you choose Mexico or would you choose the United States?
This is such a stupid issue and distraction. It literally affect a few thousand people at most and has such little impact on ANYONE. People are playing into Trump's hands by creating a controversy out of nothing. This is him playing the media to help get him votes
how about beggars can't be chooser? Why settle for a dollar burger when you got steak coming. That's their mentality. And you really think they're "asylum seekers"?
If you believe that "economic asylum" is a thing, then sure. I think it's pretty clear that they are economic migrants and not legitimate refugees so they should get in line with everyone else.
It's not my job to judge whether they are or are not legitimate asylum seekers. I will say that they are willing to not try an sneak in, they aren't being sneaky in any way. They wouldn't petition for asylum unless they had some expectation that it would be granted. I also haven't seen any evidence that they are not. Like I said, it isn't my job to determine whether or not that they are. I'm simply happy they are following the law in applying rather than trying to sneak into our nation as illegal immigrants. As for "beggars can't be choosers" that doesn't really hold any legal weight. Either way, they aren't a threat.
