Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 12K
  • Views: 494K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
I'm not sure what you are asking "why?" in regard to.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that birth tourism is unconstitutional? It was permitted for decades before there were even immigration restrictions. Are you telling me that something that was allowed under the Constitution became illegal and unconstitutional because of the passing of racist immigration laws? Tht's some seriously shallow thinking in my book.
 
ZenMode said:
I don't think he should be able to do what he is doing. The use of pardons and executive order, recently, is getting to be ridiculous. However, since We are already going down a path that is destined to end at the Supreme Court, I would not mind if certain aspects of birthright citizenship were removed, Even if it's under completely inappropriate circumstances.
Click to expand...
"Aspects" of birthright citizenship? The whole concept of birthright citizenship is that if you're born here, you're a citizen (unless your parents are diplomats). Not a whole lot of gray area to work with there.
 
finesse said:
Why do you think that birth tourism is unconstitutional? It was permitted for decades before there were even immigration restrictions. Are you telling me that something that was allowed under the Constitution became illegal and unconstitutional because of the passing of racist immigration laws? Tht's some seriously shallow thinking in my book.
Click to expand...
I think if you compare the original basis for BRC vs how it's being implemented now, there is a big gap.
 
A big enough change that the Constitution should be modified? Give me these terribly high numbers and the great damage that it's caused to justify what you want.
 
lawtig02 said:
"Aspects" of birthright citizenship? The whole concept of birthright citizenship is that if you're born here, you're a citizen (unless your parents are diplomats). Not a whole lot of gray area to work with there.
Click to expand...
It was an Amendment put into place to address the children of slaves. Their parents were treated like property and forced to come to the US against their will. That's much different than a woman waddling across the border at the 11th hour just to have a baby on US soil, so he/she is legally a citizen.
 
ZenMode said:
It was an Amendment put into place to address the children of slaves. Their parents were treated like property and forced to come to the US against their will. That's much different than a woman waddling across the border at the 11th hour just to have a baby on US soil, so he/she is legally a citizen.
Click to expand...
So you don't think immigration was happening in 1868?
 
ZenMode said:
It was an Amendment put into place to address the children of slaves. Their parents were treated like property and forced to come to the US against their will. That's much different than a woman waddling across the border at the 11th hour just to have a baby on US soil, so he/she is legally a citizen.
Click to expand...
I'd conjecture that possibility crossed their mind and they could have limited it. What do you think? Were they so stupid they overlooked the possibility of abuse or thought that this should be a broad principle broadly applied?
 
finesse said:
I'd conjecture that possibility crossed their mind and they could have limited it. What do you think? Were they so stupid they overlooked the possibility of abuse or thought that this should be a broad principle broadly applied?
Click to expand...
Could someone who knows Zen in real life check on him? I know he's always been a little trollish, but his posts in the last couple of days make me concerned he might have had a stroke or something.
 
Enigma94 said:
This thread is about Trump's deportation plan, so I'm just pointing out that what you proposed isn't what he ran on. If you didn't vote for him that's great, but don't expect your preference to be honored because guys like Tom Homon and Stephen Miller aren't stopping at the prisons and homeless. That wouldn't even scratch the surface of what they want to do.
Click to expand...

Had to revive this post. So, I was wrong. I was wrong for thinking Trump would go to the prisons first then go after homeless illegals. I admit I was wrong but I am glad I was wrong. They are going after the violent criminals that should be in jail but are not due to whatever dumb reason the courts could come up with. Especially sanctuary cities...Boston, Chicago, Denver, etc, were hit the quickest. Check this guy out.



Can anyone explain to me why what ICE doing this is bad?
 
finesse said:
I'd conjecture that possibility crossed their mind and they could have limited it. What do you think? Were they so stupid they overlooked the possibility of abuse or thought that this should be a broad principle broadly applied?
Click to expand...
I'm not going to pretend to know what the FFs were considering at the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top