Trump Admin SCOTUS cases | SCOTUS agrees to take up birthright citizenship

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 125
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
finesse said:
What constitutes misuse?
Click to expand...
Women who walk 20 yards across the border to give birth (aka anchor babies) and "birth tourists".

www.justice.gov

Rancho Cucamonga Man and Woman Found Guilty of Federal Criminal Charges in Connection with ‘Birth Tourism’ Scheme

Two San Bernardino County residents were found guilty by a jury today of operating a “birth tourism” scheme that charged Chinese clients tens of thousands of dollars to help them give birth in the United States to obtain birthright U.S. citizenship for their children.
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov
finesse said:
Is there some obligation of American citizenship they don't live up to that hurts us?
Click to expand...
That's what I'd like to see changed. If those two situations for within our requirements for citizenship, I'd say the requirements need to be changed.
finesse said:
How wide spread and damaging is this that we would make such a fundamental change in our traditions?
Click to expand...
I don't think it matters how wide spread it is.
finesse said:
Are there maybe lesser approaches or is throwing the baby out with the bathwater a new Republican Games event?
Click to expand...
I don't really see addressing people who are intentionally gaming the system as "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Do you?
 
ZenMode said:
Women who walk 20 yards across the border to give birth (aka anchor babies) and "birth tourists".

www.justice.gov

Rancho Cucamonga Man and Woman Found Guilty of Federal Criminal Charges in Connection with ‘Birth Tourism’ Scheme

Two San Bernardino County residents were found guilty by a jury today of operating a “birth tourism” scheme that charged Chinese clients tens of thousands of dollars to help them give birth in the United States to obtain birthright U.S. citizenship for their children.
www.justice.gov www.justice.gov

That's what I'd like to see changed. If those two situations for within our requirements for citizenship, I'd say the requirements need to be changed.

I don't think it matters how wide spread it is.

I don't really see addressing people who are intentionally gaming the system as "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Do you?
Click to expand...
Three strikes and you're out.
 

Trump’s plans to shatter the bureaucracy have a green light at the Supreme Court​

Incremental wins at the court give the White House confidence to go further.


“… Indeed, some legal experts say that as a practical matter, the administration — emboldened by the justices — has already managed to eliminate job protections that have been on the books for nearly 150 years.

…The most extreme version of the unitary executive theory holds that the central premise of the civil service — that rank-and-file government employees shouldn’t be hired or fired for political reasons or simply on the president’s whim — is unconstitutional because it tramples on the president’s power to control the federal government.

“It’s the logical endpoint to unitary executive theory,” said Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “Their desired end goal would be to arrive at a completely ‘at-will’ workforce. ... I think the administration is going to push the unitary executive idea as far as it can, and all of the signals it has been getting from the Supreme Court is to push further and push faster.”

While it’s unclear whether the Trump administration will ask the current court to dismantle the federal civil service system, some experts say the justices’ deference to Trump in firing-related cases is egging the administration on.…”
 
nycfan said:

Trump’s plans to shatter the bureaucracy have a green light at the Supreme Court​

Incremental wins at the court give the White House confidence to go further.


“… Indeed, some legal experts say that as a practical matter, the administration — emboldened by the justices — has already managed to eliminate job protections that have been on the books for nearly 150 years.

…The most extreme version of the unitary executive theory holds that the central premise of the civil service — that rank-and-file government employees shouldn’t be hired or fired for political reasons or simply on the president’s whim — is unconstitutional because it tramples on the president’s power to control the federal government.

“It’s the logical endpoint to unitary executive theory,” said Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan. “Their desired end goal would be to arrive at a completely ‘at-will’ workforce. ... I think the administration is going to push the unitary executive idea as far as it can, and all of the signals it has been getting from the Supreme Court is to push further and push faster.”

While it’s unclear whether the Trump administration will ask the current court to dismantle the federal civil service system, some experts say the justices’ deference to Trump in firing-related cases is egging the administration on.…”
Click to expand...
“… The case the justices will take up Monday doesn’t go that far. It involves Trump’s attempt in March to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter. (Trump tapped Slaughter in 2018 to fill a Democratic seat on the FTC. Biden renominated her in 2023 to an additional seven-year term.)

Federal law has long dictated that FTC commissioners can be fired only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” It’s a provision that the Supreme Court upheld in 1935, in a case challenging President Franklin Roosevelt’s firing of FTC member William Humphrey. The ruling, which came to be known as Humphrey’s Executor, led to similar for-cause protections for leaders of independent agencies across the federal government and for some other posts.…”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top