He's not "changing the law"- he's (proposing) to change the official interpretation/application/execution of the law. That is in his purview as leader of the Executive Branch. Very important distinction. His belief is that the law has been and is being erroneously applied. Congress can either pass a bill that codifies the ExO* or do nothing and allow it to stand until if/when the next head of Executive Branch rescinds the order. Or until the SCOTUS rules against the precedence it set in the Elk decision. *big assumption being Republicans maintain majorities. If they lose one or both chambers such a bill would either go nowhere or opposing bills would stalemate, ultimately inevitably leading to a SCOTUS ruling. I'm not sure Dems would want that left to SCOTUS, the language and documented original intent of the 14th excluded foreigners who were recognized subjects/citizens of foreign powers. Whether or not the President has the power to issue Executive Order here is not debatable. The Court very well could hold that the Amendment is explicit in supporting the Executive Order on the facts; or at least ambiguous enough so that Congress either acts or the ExO stands until rescinded by subsequent administrations.
Just so I'm clear- the 14th does not unilaterally grant citizenship to those born on US soil to foreign nationals. Anyone who says it does is either lying or woefully misinformed. Congress has absolute statutory authority in power in legislating citizenship- 8USC1401 already excludes citizenship to those born here from certain classes of foreign nationals. It's codified, and has never been successfully challenged. The only legal questions are whether or not the current Administration's proposed official interpretation is legally sufficient on the merits or must be supported by additional legislation proposed/ratified by Congress and signed by the Executive.
Non political rant- Halloween. I get home from work and don't even have a chance to let my dogs out back before the doorbell is ringing the dogs go berserk and the puppy who's a little excitable drops a massive load in the living room. Then while trying to clean it up two more groups of kids knock on the door. After getting the mess cleaned up I just ended up piling the dogs in the truck and now I'm driving around town running errands. I have zero decorations in my windows and a big sign in the window next to the door that says beware of dogs. What makes you think I want to give your kid candy? Signed, -Grumpy Old Man
Oh, FFS- Menards And of course they didn't have what I needed anyway. Off to HD and then probably Lowes
I was listening to trick and treaters in the gated community to the east of my stand, funny the deer did not give a crap about the ruckus 100 yards away.
Yeah I had the smartest deer I have ever watched from a stand in the area, I sat and waited till she walked off and 5 minutes more and figured the least amount of noise the better I was doing the ninja sneak out. 1st sit in the rut stand get busted `or even raise suspicion with this doe and she is hunting you. I could have shot her last night but I just can't kill the live bait and blow up the plot stand on the first sit.
Maybe it’s time to change tactics, I’m grabbing my dinosaur suit and hitting the woods! Sent from my iPhone using Bowhunting.com Forums
That bolded statement does not include illegal immigrants who are coming to this country with the intent to stay here. It applied to mostly diplomats and their children who were exempt from following our laws. The illegals would not be exempt from our laws. They also should not receive a benefit from breaking the law. The US could have started this process years ago by starting with mainly the Chinese who come on a tourist visa for the express purpose of have a baby on US soil. They should be excluded citizenship based on the fact they do not intend to be domiciled in the US. They are only doing it so that their children are considered residents for colleges and universities. Gotta give Trump credit, when he does something, he's all in. Don't agree with it in this case. Should start small and get a precedent established.
Sold the Bad Boy buggies! BOOM! Both to the same guy. Todays rant: Selling stuff and not getting as much for it as you wanted....Came down from $14K to $10.5K... Knew we wouldn't get $7K each, gave myself some wiggle room but had very few calls and a lot of scammers from Craigslist. I was just freakin tired of messing with it. Secondary rant: It's scary selling something and trying to be sure you don't get screwed on the payout. Took a cashiers check and had it verified in person at my bank before I gave him a bill of sale. No fool proof way to protect your butt....
Housewives of ...; Downunder: Friends; ... I leave the room and find something that needs to be fixed, a chore to do or watch something else upstairs.
all food for thought, but the point remains that if Congress can write a statute that excludes one class of aliens they can do so for any class of aliens. It is the "subject to jurisdiction" clause that is up for interpretation. IF the 14th was written to include all persons born on US soil; why didn't it just say that, period -stop- end of sentence? The clause would not be needed. The author of the 14th himself later said it was never intended to include all persons born here to every class of aliens. It is that clause that excludes classes of aliens not legally present. Also, many illegals (not just tourists, even those who sneak in w/o a visa) do not intend to stay here forever. Talk to many an illegal alien and they plan (or originally planned) on making money for a few years and then going back home. Intent of the migrant either way would be nearly impossible to prove in a court of law.
