Punny Combinations "My morning constitutional is more regulated than the U.S. Constitution - both require consistent flow and careful interpretation." "Just like the Constitution, my bowel movements have amendments: sometimes they're smooth, sometimes they require significant revision." "The Founding Fathers would appreciate that both constitutions involve processing what comes naturally and ensuring proper movement."
Imo, he's doing all the wrong things to get control of illegal immigration. But, Republicans are in power and they will pursue it their way, and that's fine and proper so long as they respect people's civil rights. I'm sure this EO won't be the only way they'll trample rights in the next 4 years, but it's probably the most outrageous. Yeah, that amendment is a big obstacle in his effort to make America the way he wants it. But, we have a system for changing that amendment he hasn't even engaged. It's slow and difficult. He'd be bound to fail in this political environment too. But, it's also the only legitimate path to make the change he wants. So, he needs to find some other way to control immigration that doesn't deny citizenship to Americans.
The only people it would affect are future people who haven't yet been born, so I don't think it is the case that their rights are being taken away. I think you're correct that this is very unlikely to fly in courts, but perhaps having the Supreme Court make a definitive statement about it is for the best.
Immigration is the issue that propelled him to power. I really don't remember it being such a big issue before his first campaign Cartel violence on the border was the issue but it actually declined under Obama
Americans complaining about immigrants would be like if Celtics complained visiting teams have an unfair advantage when they play at TD Garden. We are suppose to conquer the world (with our righteousness), and how dafuk can we do that if we are a bunch of p*****s who can't even outcompete and outmuscle at home?!! One word: Soft.
He was born in the USA over 50 years ago. Yes- he is an American citizen. He has been an exceptional citizen… the idea that someone can be born in the USA, live in the USA for half a century and have someone question their citizenship is insane to me. This is a big deal… a massive thing and everyone’s response is basically “good luck” or “I hope it works out”…
Yes - there is, historically at least that “body of people” that step in are called “a mob”… that would go to their respective homes, pull them into the street and beat them.
We're also addicted to the cheap lifestyle that they subsidize. There's a reason the GOP hasn't been serious about mass deportations for 40 years. A silent, nearly-indentured labor pool is cheap and exploitable! Texans are gonna have a rude reality check if Trump places 25% tariffs on Mexican goods and deports "all" of the illegal immigrants - HEB is gonna wreak havoc on their wallets.
What's really needed is for 75% or more of our country to acknowledge and realize the negative impacts that illegal immigration has had and, more importantly, will have on our country. Only then might it be possible for the constitution to be amended. To amend the constitution, we would need 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House of Reps to vote to propose the amendment (or have 2/3 of state legislatures to ask congress to call a convention to propose an amendment). AND, after we have an amendment, we would need 3/4 of state legislatures (38 states) to ratify the amendment (along with some other processes). Right now there are plenty of people who agree that we need an amendment to birthright citizenship....even a good majority of us think that we need it... but not a 3/4 majority. So, really, there's no chance anytime soon that this amendment would happen. Right now, there are 18 states suing the Trump administration for his EO. In my opinion, Texas should bus as many illegal aliens as possible to those states and make them feel the negative impacts that other states have felt. Maybe (just maybe) that might spur those states to realize the impacts and maybe change their perspectives. Those states are: New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, & Wisconsin.
What else can be done? Seriously I'm at a lost here, a majority of the voting populace signed up for this, and he's just getting started...
But if the interpretation of the amendment is changed, they theoretically could say he never was. Can of worms.
Do you feel the same way about the 2nd Amendment? You know it was written at a time before we had a standing army.
Why do you think states should be punished for claiming this EO is unconstitutional, which is a totally defensible position?
Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order is Even Worse than Expected - and Even More Blatantly Unconstitutional It applies to children of large numbers of legal visa-holders, as well as those of undocumented immigrants. https://reason.com/volokh/2025/01/2...ted-and-even-more-blatantly-unconstitutional/ excerpt: The order doesn't just deny birthright citizenship to children of migrants who entered the US illegally. It also denies it to children of those who entered the US on perfectly legal temporary work and tourism visas. As Reason immigration writer Fiona Harrigan explains, this will affect children of many thousands of work visa holders, including H-1B visa holders much-loved by Elon Musk, among others. In a recent Just Security article, I critiqued the (very weak) arguments that children of undocumented immigrants aren't entitled to birthright citizenship because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. These arguments are even more absurd when it comes to children of legal visa holders. The latter and their parents are completely subject to US laws, arguably even more so than the undocumented. And the weak argument that children of undocumented immigrants don't qualify because their parents are "invaders" is still more ridiculous when it comes to children of people who entered legally. The executive order only applies to children born after February 19 of this year. But if the legal logic behind it is sound, nothing would prevent the administration from applying it retroactively. Indeed, if children of these types of immigrants really are excluded from birthright citizenship, retroactive application might be constitutionally required. If the order stands, it would also create a bureaucratic morass that threatens to engulf even children of native-born citizens. In order to secure citizenship for your child, it would no longer be enough to provide documentation of parentage or place of birth. You would also presumably need to show the parents had the appropriate legal status - and their parents before them, potentially all the way back to the first member of the family who entered the US, perhaps decades or centuries ago. After all, if there is even one break in the legal status of the family tree, it could render succeeding generations ineligible for birthright citizenship! At the very least, this is likely to be a serious burden for poorer and lesser-educated parents, who may not have easy access to documentation going back many years. Lawsuits challenging the order have already been filed by the ACLU (on behalf immigrant groups), and 18 state governments. I won't go into the procedural issues in detail. But I expect many, if not all, these plaintiffs will have standing to sue, and overcome other procedural hurdles. This is particularly likely in the case of some of the ACLU clients, who are expectant mothers on temporary visas, scheduled to give birth after February 19. Supreme Court precedent on state government standing is murky. But I tentatively predict at least some of the states should be able to get standing based on the fact that the citizenship status of residents affects funding streams for various federal grants to the states. more at the link
