If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
Wrong on all counts
Oh really. Care to explain how? Go point by point. Links would be great.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
I think it complies with the 14th amendment fine, I agree it doesn't comply with precedent.
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
That's actually open for interpretation and I for one am happy that Trump is pushing the issue. The 14th wasn't designed to extend citizenship on children born to people in this country illegally.
This is a negotiating tactic. Trump asks for the moon and then settles back to what he wanted in the first place - which is to have the immigration laws currently on the books enforced.
It's really not that difficult to understand but the Dems want to wet their pants over it and they'll get played again and Trump will declaring more winning.
I oppose this, because this should not be decided by executive order. If Congress wants to take it up (lolz), great. But something significant as citizenship qualification should not be dependent upon the whims of a sitting president.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
I think it complies with the 14th amendment fine, I agree it doesn't comply with precedent.
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
The argument is that it wasn't until the 1960s that this birth right citizenship became accepted Federal policy and that the change came not by legislation or established law but as a function and policy of the Federal bureaucracy. The President is in charge of the Federal bureaucracy, if it could be established by the the FB then it can be changed by executive order.
I oppose this, because this should not be decided by executive order. If Congress wants to take it up (lolz), great. But something significant as citizenship qualification should not be dependent upon the whims of a sitting president.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
I think it complies with the 14th amendment fine, I agree it doesn't comply with precedent.
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
The argument is that it wasn't until the 1960s that this birth right citizenship became accepted Federal policy and that the change came not by legislation or established law but as a function and policy of the Federal bureaucracy. The President is in charge of the Federal bureaucracy, if it could be established by the the FB then it can be changed by executive order.
Anytime someone opens their statement with "the argument is that" they are parroting something they don't really believe it themselves. If you believed it you'd just leave those first four words out.
We get it, you want this to go through so you'll find an argument for it. Deep down you know this is the wrong way to do it.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
I think it complies with the 14th amendment fine, I agree it doesn't comply with precedent.
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
Supreme Court decisions establish precedent and are interpretations of the Constitution. You can't silo the 14th amendment without looking at supreme Court cases.
That being said. There is not clear precedent on two illegal immigrant parents having a baby on US soil. The precedent was Chinese parents here legally. So this will have to go to the supreme Court and most legal experts think it won't pass the supreme Court. Some think it will. Either way that is years down the road.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
I think it complies with the 14th amendment fine, I agree it doesn't comply with precedent.
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
The argument is that it wasn't until the 1960s that this birth right citizenship became accepted Federal policy and that the change came not by legislation or established law but as a function and policy of the Federal bureaucracy. The President is in charge of the Federal bureaucracy, if it could be established by the the FB then it can be changed by executive order.
Anytime someone opens their statement with "the argument is that" they are parroting something they don't really believe it themselves. If you believed it you'd just leave those first four words out.
We get it, you want this to go through so you'll find an argument for it. Deep down you know this is the wrong way to do it.
Actually, I do believe that argument. I didn't come up with it, I'm just restating what I first heard others establish. I'm trying not to take attribution for an argument I didn't come up with.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
I think it complies with the 14th amendment fine, I agree it doesn't comply with precedent.
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
Trump is playing the longer game. Attack the 14th by executive order to show it can be done, then claim a Democrat president will do the same thing with the 2nd amendment, and you've hurt every future Democrat running for office.
It's the old accuse them of doing what you're doing thing, and Trump is an expert at it - and the Democrats are too distracted by Jacob Wohl to even see it coming.
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
I think it complies with the 14th amendment fine, I agree it doesn't comply with precedent.
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
Trump is playing the longer game. Attack the 14th by executive order to show it can be done, then claim a Democrat president will do the same thing with the 2nd amendment, and you've hurt every future Democrat running for office.
It's the old accuse them of doing what you're doing thing, and Trump is an expert at it - and the Democrats are too distracted by Jacob Wohl to even see it coming.
The best part. Conservatives have blamed Democrats for the nuclear option that allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed with only 50 votes. Using that fucktarded logic, Conservatives would be to blame for overturning the 2nd amendment.
(Which everyone with a brain knows 2A can't be overturned without 2/3 votes from the states)
Contemporary writings by the supporters of the amendment make it clear that it was for freed slaves. The language is archaic but it only applies to those subject to the jurisdiction of the USA not illegal aliens
The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether it does apply to illegals and baby tourists or not. This is the first step on that road and also once again gets the democrats in favor of something that does not have widespread support. The Reid video shows how far the democrats have moved
@dflea is not wrong. This is a mid term political ploy
Contemporary writings by the supporters of the amendment make it clear that it was for freed slaves. The language is archaic but it only applies to those subject to the jurisdiction of the USA not illegal aliens
The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether it does apply to illegals and baby tourists or not. This is the first step on that road and also once again gets the democrats in favor of something that does not have widespread support. The Reid video shows how far the democrats have moved
@dflea is not wrong. This is a mid term political ploy
That dumb shit Trump sure gets lucky at times
Yes the Original intent was for slaves because at that time, America basically had open borders. Since things have changed, there have been supreme Court decisions that have interpreted the language for other scenarios.
So Reid speaks for Democrats but heritage foundation doesn't speak for conservatives? El oh El.
That being said, yes there are a lot of dumbfucks who buy into the Trump immigration nonsense.
Contemporary writings by the supporters of the amendment make it clear that it was for freed slaves. The language is archaic but it only applies to those subject to the jurisdiction of the USA not illegal aliens
The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether it does apply to illegals and baby tourists or not. This is the first step on that road and also once again gets the democrats in favor of something that does not have widespread support. The Reid video shows how far the democrats have moved
@dflea is not wrong. This is a mid term political ploy
That dumb shit Trump sure gets lucky at times
Yes the Original intent was for slaves because at that time, America basically had open borders. Since things have changed, there have been supreme Court decisions that have interpreted the language for other scenarios.
So Reid speaks for Democrats but heritage foundation doesn't speak for conservatives? El oh El.
That being said, yes there are a lot of dumbfucks who buy into the Trump immigration nonsense.
List one
Reid was only the majority leader of the Senate you fucking moron
By Trump immigration nonsense do you mean Clinton, Reid, Obama, and the democrats immigration nonsense?
If it's so stupid it should be really easy to answer.
But you're a pussy, as always.
Harry Reid is a giant pussy and a politician. Who wavers in the wind wherever the money is.
BTW I never called Trump a racist for his anchor baby policies. So I have zero idea why you are asking me that question.
So you're saying this policy isn't racist?
Trump spreading lies and fear about immigrants is racist shit. The policy in and of itself doesn't comply with the 14th amendment and subsequent supreme count cases.
Hondo before the got his talking points.
Hondo after he got his talking points:
That being said. There is not clear precedent on two illegal immigrant parents having a baby on US soil. The precedent was Chinese parents here legally. So this will have to go to the supreme Court and most legal experts think it won't pass the supreme Court. Some think it will. Either way that is years down the road.
The intent of the 14th Amendment did not make citizens of offspring of alien parents born on American soil, but rather the Supreme Court’s malfeasance did so. And the Supreme Court’s methodical malfeasance can be demonstrated, and the decision reversed, without requiring any amendment.
By threatening an EO, Trump prompted the legislative branch, through Lindsey Graham to introduce legislation ending the absurd policy of birthright citizenship. This is the correct path to take.
The intent of the 14th Amendment did not make citizens of offspring of alien parents born on American soil, but rather the Supreme Court’s malfeasance did so. And the Supreme Court’s methodical malfeasance can be demonstrated, and the decision reversed, without requiring any amendment.
By threatening an EO, Trump prompted the legislative branch, through Lindsey Graham to introduce legislation ending the absurd policy of birthright citizenship. This is the correct path to take.
If Graham actually introduces such legislation, and Trump actually holds off on the EO, I'll side with this.
Comments
Your an ignorant piece of shit and happy to be so.
Do your own research and stop replying on talking points
My biggest issue with it is he wants to do it by executive order. The executive branch has gotten way too much power over the past few administrations. I'm not for accelerating that in any way shape or form. So I oppose this policy on procedural grounds. But I'd support it if it went through Congress.
It's really not that difficult to understand but the Dems want to wet their pants over it and they'll get played again and Trump will declaring more winning.
I oppose this, because this should not be decided by executive order. If Congress wants to take it up (lolz), great. But something significant as citizenship qualification should not be dependent upon the whims of a sitting president.
edit: what @HillsboroDuck said
We get it, you want this to go through so you'll find an argument for it. Deep down you know this is the wrong way to do it.
That being said. There is not clear precedent on two illegal immigrant parents having a baby on US soil. The precedent was Chinese parents here legally. So this will have to go to the supreme Court and most legal experts think it won't pass the supreme Court. Some think it will. Either way that is years down the road.
It's the old accuse them of doing what you're doing thing, and Trump is an expert at it - and the Democrats are too distracted by Jacob Wohl to even see it coming.
(Which everyone with a brain knows 2A can't be overturned without 2/3 votes from the states)
The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether it does apply to illegals and baby tourists or not. This is the first step on that road and also once again gets the democrats in favor of something that does not have widespread support. The Reid video shows how far the democrats have moved
@dflea is not wrong. This is a mid term political ploy
That dumb shit Trump sure gets lucky at times
So Reid speaks for Democrats but heritage foundation doesn't speak for conservatives? El oh El.
That being said, yes there are a lot of dumbfucks who buy into the Trump immigration nonsense.
Reid was only the majority leader of the Senate you fucking moron
By Trump immigration nonsense do you mean Clinton, Reid, Obama, and the democrats immigration nonsense?
Its the same position
Hondo before the got his talking points.
Hondo after he got his talking points:
That being said. There is not clear precedent on two illegal immigrant parents having a baby on US soil. The precedent was Chinese parents here legally. So this will have to go to the supreme Court and most legal experts think it won't pass the supreme Court. Some think it will. Either way that is years down the road.
By threatening an EO, Trump prompted the legislative branch, through Lindsey Graham to introduce legislation ending the absurd policy of birthright citizenship. This is the correct path to take.
Big ifs though.