Trump EO's

[mspart]

21 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Because Native Americans were always treated as "other" whose only path to citizenship was naturalization. They were one of one. All part of the troubled history with Native Americans.

But the law was not  needed according to what you are saying.   So why was it needed?  Seems like a quirk in history. 

mspart

[Offthemat]

What i keep looking at is the way it is laid out as a two part qualification.  Born in the U.S. and under the jurisdiction thereof.  This dispels @Wrestleknownothing’s stance that everyone in the United States is under the jurisdiction thereof.  If everyone here is under the jurisdiction thereof, then it’s redundant and unnecessary to say it.  It must have further meaning, which hasn’t heretofore been explained.  For some reason, there are people who think they wanted a pathway for those anchor babies.  I don’t. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

45 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

What i keep looking at is the way it is laid out as a two part qualification.  Born in the U.S. and under the jurisdiction thereof.  This dispels @Wrestleknownothing’s stance that everyone in the United States is under the jurisdiction thereof.  If everyone here is under the jurisdiction thereof, then it’s redundant and unnecessary to say it.  It must have further meaning, which hasn’t heretofore been explained.  For some reason, there are people who think they wanted a pathway for those anchor babies.  I don’t. 

It was covered in the first quote. You are just choosing to ignore it.

"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

There is a federal judge who agrees with me.

"I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order," Coughenour said of Trump's policy.

"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Wrestleknownothing

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

There is a federal judge who agrees with me.

But there's a two term President that doesn't. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

14 minutes ago, ionel said:

But there's a two term President that doesn't. 

And right now he is losing that argument worse than offthemat

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

And right now he is losing that argument worse than offthemat

Well I think we can all agree he ain't the sharpist knife in the drawer.