Leftists HATE Facts Part II: Trump "Overrides" the Constituion By Executive Order!

On a post I read here Leftists went insane as usual over "threats" that your President Trump was about to "ooverride the Comstitution" by executive order. Of course facts never being their best quality when I asked what exactly that meant they replied President Trump was going got "repeal" the 14th Amendment by executive order and violate the Constitution.

Sigh...

Being a soon to be European I am amazed how little American history must be taught anymore to Americans while we in the Philippines had MANDATORY classes in the subject. The author of that post did not know your Constitution was passed before your Bill of Rightd and that they are separate documents but wrote the impeachable "crime" President Trump was about to commit was against the 14th Amendment. Of course he did not read or bother to reseach what exactly President Trump intended nor anyone else who posted there excepto yo. It took 10 minutes.

President Trump (doesn't it just drive Leftiies CRAZY when I use his proper title?) wants to ban birthright citizenship which he says correctly is not protevted by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was wrtten to enfranchise Black-Americans who the Democrats wanted to deny full rights as Americans - like voting their former slave-owners asses out of office. Since then it has been interpreted that ANY child born in the United States is an Amerocan citizen even if the parents are not. The result is what I saw advertised in the Philippines and is much bigger in China - birthright tourism...a pregnant woman from outside the USA comes to the United States and births her child there. In China agents provide complete services....doctors, lawyers, a place to stay and everything for about 15-20,000 USD. This means American CITIZENS are actually paying for the children of NON-CITIZENS (who also stay in the USA of course...hear all that "we cant seprate families" trash from Democrats? Thats what that is really about!). It also means that IF before 9/11 Osama bin Laden had made sure each of his wives gave birth here all the children of Osama including his son who took over when daddy was killed would have been US citizens.

Is THAT what the 14th Amendment was all about?

If you think "yes' then here are the words of the man who wrote the "citiznship clause" in the 14th Amendment -

"This will not, OF COURSE, include persons born in the Unted States who are foreigners, aliens who beling to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Sen.Jacob Howard, Republican

The words 'of course" show that every REASONABLE and INTELLIGENT person knew that. Unfortunately he never met a modern Leftist.

What did Democrats used to think about this issue? How about this -

"If being an illegal alien wasn't already easy enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No SANE country would do that, right? Guess again!"

Sen. Harry Reid, Democrat

The Democrats now, of course are all against this. Their entire purpose is and always has to gain and hold on to power and are willing to do anything - from requiring US citizens to pay for the services to their children so their parents will from gratitude for allowing them to scam the system vote them it office to treason against the United States to make it so.

In fact what Presdient Trump proposes is RETURN the 14th Amendment to its ORIGINAL meaning. Pity Mr. STOut who accused me of being a "foreigner" who "wanted to overthtow our constituion" didn't have the time to find that out ... okay it really took me 30 minutes to do.

BTW...isnt someone referring to me as "a foriegner who wants to overthrow our constituiton" ironic when I am the one arguing for the United States to PROTECT its citizenship rights? Oh well I only do what Putin pays me to do - another idiotic accusation I have read.

Oh... and isn't calling me a "foreigner" in a negative way kinda...I dunno...racist?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

CopperCicada · M

The man's actual language was "eliminate birthright citizenship". That covers via jus soli and via jus sanguinis.

If the intention is to restrict [i]jus soli[/i], that's one thing. It would be a historical and cultural shift as most of the Americas, not just the US, recognizes jus soli (right of soil) citizenship. For historical reasons.

Countries who restrict jus soli typically limit citizenship to children with one citizen parent. Or one parent with permanent residency. That would not be acceptable in the current cultural climate.

At the same time restricting jus soli in this hemisphere is not without precedent. I know Colombia does. Probably others.

If the intention is eliminating jus soli, then we're going like India. Which isn't a shame as they are the largest democracy on the planet. The eliminated jus soli ages ago because of continued migrations from Bangladesh.

That may be the best thing given a future with climate refugees.

But we have to be ultra clear and just saying abolishing "birthright citizenship" is of course going to flip people out.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@CopperCicada If people "flip out" then its cause they want to be and would nn matter what language used. The term "birthright citizenship" is clear after two minutes of delving...unfortunately since people rely on other people to explain what another person said instead of taking the time to find out or if that finding requires more than 25 words and maybe a little history and background or God forbid having read a BOOK on the subject then the "flipping out" is what you get but see no reason to accommodate that.

Of course citizenship in your country and in most others is not limited to one or the other. Just ask Steven Segal. Taking away birthright citizenship does not prevent anyone from becoming an American citizen. As I am in the process of changing my own citizenship and can claim jus sanguinis I am particularly interested in the topic but if not I still can apply for Czech citizenship. But of course it would not be then a case of being rewarded because my parents committed a crime.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@CopperCicada In fact not a single European country has jus soli citizenship. And what may be "a shame" to you is a matter of cultural survival for others. Mass immigration from Bangladesh was changing the religious complexion of India...perhaps if you were Hindu you might have thought that "a shame". Moreover I was under the impression the United States was a sovereign nation, its laws not dependent on how other nations in any hemisphere determine citizenship, Colombia included ... no "precedent" is required nor relevant.

CopperCicada · M

@Abrienda Sure. People are dreadfully misinformed. The administration is also not crystal clear.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@CopperCicada I am afraid you are right...both times, I am sorry to say. Then again that's hardly new to the present administration or politicians in general, is it?

CopperCicada · M

@Abrienda Well. There are good reasons to restrict and even eliminate jus soli.

India was very clear in eliminating it because of continued immigration from Bangladesh. And given a future of climate refugees that makes sense.

Most other countries have restricted, in some cases heavily restricted, jus soli. That's the norm in most of the world.

The exception is this hemisphere. Unrestricted jus soli has been and is the norm on this hemisphere. The suggestion that unlimited jus soli is a policy of only the United States is wrong.

So if we want to be clear I can see restricting and even abolishing jus soli. It would require an change to the 14th or a SCOTUS case.

But that's all different than eliminating "birthright citizenship" by executive order.

As I've said before and I'll say it again. I'd much rather just secure the border. It's not just about people. It's about metric tons of contraband. Heroin, coke, meth. And if one can get thousands of people and metric tons of drugs across the border, then one can get 9kg of fissionable material.

It is a shame.

It's a loss of how my ancestors gained their citizenship.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@CopperCicada Yes but the reason for India's action was as I said about cultural integrity. That's a real concern, something the French, Swedish and Germans are finding out to their cost.

Why Americans think "diversity" is a strength is beyond me. Your own national motto refutes that idea, but I guess now only foreigners know these things, not Americans.

CopperCicada · M

@Abrienda Well. Cultural integrity is something to be taken seriously.

I suspect that means something different in different places.

I'm not sure what it means in the US given the cultural diversity we have.

I do know we have been having this same dialog since my ancestors came to America in the 1880's.

Abrienda · 26-30, F

@CopperCicada You don't think you have an American culture? Really? And of course you do know what E Pluribus Unum means? I don't mean to be facetious - a former Democrat vice-president and recent candidate for president didn't.

CopperCicada · M

@Abrienda No where do I say there is no American culture.

I just think diversity means something different here. Than perhaps a society that is very homogeneous.

To be clear-- I think creating diversity artificially through lotteries and the like is misguided and unfair to everyone.