T
TheLittleLady
Guest
News articles are not court cases.
- Status
M
midori
Guest
But the news articles are saying a court case has been filed.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Talking points are fun to read, aren’t they!
This is a link to the actual filing, The claims are based on established law (all cited in the documents)
This is a link to the actual filing, The claims are based on established law (all cited in the documents)
A
Arkansan
Guest
The point, which seems to have eluded you, was that Catholicism is not a culture, but that which sanctifies cultures. Jesus commanded the Church to baptize all nations, not to abolish them.
It was your analogy.
P
PetraG
Guest
Uh, uh, uh…no one said “everybody does it.” The President of the United States incorrectly asserted,
“We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States . . . with all of those benefits."
No, essentially every country in the Western Hemisphere has it. If he doesn’t know that, it is because he didn’t bother to ask anyone to check for him.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Yeah, but the point is that Trump said “We’re the only country…” and it’s clear that he’s not even in the ball park. Again, you have a choice: did he lie outright or is he abysmally ignorant? There is no other choice.
P
PetraG
Guest
You make me blush; I cannot claim it as my own:
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. 1 Cor. 12:12
and
If part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. 1 Cor. 12:26
P
PetraG
Guest
I don’t know that I would call it “abysmally ignorant,” but the point is that in his position he has no excuse for not getting his facts straight before he speaks. He has plenty of people to research for him; he doesn’t have to rely on memory or some news outlet, nor does he have to find the time to research these things on his own. He is also not a private citizen, someone who can just be wrong about the starting point of his policy opinions with no serious repercussions if it turns out he’s incorrect.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Even if they were to do so, it is not as if citizens are the only ones protected by the Constitution. That is not true. The Constitution and statutes passed by the Congress can protect aliens, as well.
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Congress needs to do its job and codify all this in LAW!
P
PetraG
Guest
Codify what? Do you mean they need to amend the Constitution to end it?
If you think so, but it isn’t likely they can get 2/3 of both the House and the Senate to go for that.
Then there is the matter of getting 38 states (a full 3/4) to ratify it; this isn’t something the Legislative branch can do alone, even if the President is willing.
If the President wants to test whether birthright citizenship is actually guaranteed by the Constitution, an executive order ending it is probably an easier way to test that than trying to get Congress to pass a statute. (He does not seem to fear any political consequences in the event his order is found to be unconstitutional. Been there, done that.)
Would you want to end birthright citizenship, or would you favor a limited form of it, instead? (Examples: restricting it to the children of permanent resident aliens or those in the country with legal permission or those who do not have citizenship in another nation when they’re born, et cetera…other countries with some restricted form of birthright citizenship do restrict it in a variety of ways.)
There is a humanitarian reason to do this, after all. US citizenship is so prized that pregnant mothers have been known to make dangerous border crossings precisely in order to win citizenship for their children. It could be argued that eliminating birthright citizenship for a child whose mother is here illegally would remove the incentive to do such a dangerous thing. If the mother is subject to deportation for illegal entry, her infant would be deported with her, where ever that is.
Last edited:
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
Well, if you and I can figure out the facts in less than a minute, he can too. He chooses not to! You can insert whatever adjective you like in front of “ignorant,” but I’ll stick with “abysmally” until I see otherwise!
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
Excellent post.
P
PetraG
Guest
I don’t think there is any excuse for someone in his position to not know these things, so I agree with you on that. The President should not go on the record as saying we’re the only nation that has it without bothering to find out if that assumption is true!!!
There are a lot of other people, however, who don’t know that particular fact and yet are hardly “absymally ignorant.” It is a piece of information that not everyone knows off of the top of their heads, even if they did very well in their high school civics class.
I do not want to imply that not knowing this would constitute an unusual amount of ignorance for an average person. It is not like being able to find the Pacific Ocean or Brazil on a map. Most people would have to look it up. That’s all I’m saying.
Last edited:
M
midori
Guest
I’m sorry… it’s the end of a long day. Help me out here.
Someone sez, “it’s irritating when we hear about immigrants who haven’t even gotten here yet who attempt to sue the government for violating their constitutional rights.”
You say, “Give me a case where anyone has done this?”
I say, “Hey, a case just got filed a couple days ago. Here are some news articles on the subject.”
You say, “News articles aren’t court cases.”
I say, “They’re talking about a case that was filed.”
You say, “Talking points! Here’s the filing!!!”
Would it not be more productive to have said seven or eight hours ago, “Well, you can read the filing for yourself here. If you look at it, they’re basing their argument on x, y, and z. Let’s go ahead and talk about the merits of x, y, and z.”
Right now, I’m reading it and getting bogged down at the thought of an attorney using adverbs in the opening sentence, and then forgetting to use adverbs where they belong, and some sloppy punctuation. (Is it normal to reference blog posts in legal filings?) The writing needs a good editorial hand overall to make it a little less charged.
But it’s a nice thing that it is working its way through the courts system, because the subject is definitely overdue for being addressed in a definitive way. In 1983, there were an estimated 2 million illegal immigrants in the US (a bit under 1% of the total population). In 2016, there were an estimated 11.3 million (3.5% of the population). That’s, like, the entire population of Wyoming plus Vermont plus Alaska plus North Dakota plus South Dakota plus Delaware plus Montana plus Rhode Island plus Maine plus New Hampshire plus Hawaii plus Washington DC.
Birthright citizenship often crops up in countries who have some grounding in British law. So it’s interesting that Australia and New Zealand both had birthright citizenship, but in 1981-1983, modified it to hinge upon the parents’ meeting certain residential requirements. Ireland used to have birthright citizenship, but changed its laws in 2004. India used to have birthright citizenship, but got rid of it entirely in 1987. I think Canada is the only member of the Commonwealth who hasn’t rethought its stance.
Germany undertook citizenship reform back in 2000, but went in the other direction— it used to be pretty strict about parents needing to be Germans in order for children to be German citizens, but it eased things up. (It still requires one parent to possess 8 years’ worth of residency, has a permanent residence permit to reside in either Germany or another EU member country, or is a citizen of an EU member country.)
So, it’s a good conversation to have. I’m happy it’s on a lot of people’s radar. I’m curious how it will play out over the next few months.
Someone sez, “it’s irritating when we hear about immigrants who haven’t even gotten here yet who attempt to sue the government for violating their constitutional rights.”
You say, “Give me a case where anyone has done this?”
I say, “Hey, a case just got filed a couple days ago. Here are some news articles on the subject.”
You say, “News articles aren’t court cases.”
I say, “They’re talking about a case that was filed.”
You say, “Talking points! Here’s the filing!!!”
Would it not be more productive to have said seven or eight hours ago, “Well, you can read the filing for yourself here. If you look at it, they’re basing their argument on x, y, and z. Let’s go ahead and talk about the merits of x, y, and z.”
Right now, I’m reading it and getting bogged down at the thought of an attorney using adverbs in the opening sentence, and then forgetting to use adverbs where they belong, and some sloppy punctuation. (Is it normal to reference blog posts in legal filings?) The writing needs a good editorial hand overall to make it a little less charged.
But it’s a nice thing that it is working its way through the courts system, because the subject is definitely overdue for being addressed in a definitive way. In 1983, there were an estimated 2 million illegal immigrants in the US (a bit under 1% of the total population). In 2016, there were an estimated 11.3 million (3.5% of the population). That’s, like, the entire population of Wyoming plus Vermont plus Alaska plus North Dakota plus South Dakota plus Delaware plus Montana plus Rhode Island plus Maine plus New Hampshire plus Hawaii plus Washington DC.
Birthright citizenship often crops up in countries who have some grounding in British law. So it’s interesting that Australia and New Zealand both had birthright citizenship, but in 1981-1983, modified it to hinge upon the parents’ meeting certain residential requirements. Ireland used to have birthright citizenship, but changed its laws in 2004. India used to have birthright citizenship, but got rid of it entirely in 1987. I think Canada is the only member of the Commonwealth who hasn’t rethought its stance.
Germany undertook citizenship reform back in 2000, but went in the other direction— it used to be pretty strict about parents needing to be Germans in order for children to be German citizens, but it eased things up. (It still requires one parent to possess 8 years’ worth of residency, has a permanent residence permit to reside in either Germany or another EU member country, or is a citizen of an EU member country.)
So, it’s a good conversation to have. I’m happy it’s on a lot of people’s radar. I’m curious how it will play out over the next few months.
E
Erikaspirit16
Guest
No argument from me. We agree. And of course Trump has a long, long history of saying things that are just totally wrong (you could start with something like “I’m the first Republican presidential candidate to win Wisconsin since Eisenhower in 1952.” umm…how about Eisenhower in 1956? Nixon in 1960, 1968, and 1972? Reagan in 1984 and 1988? and then progress to tariffs and a mercantilist trade policy that was proven wrong in 1776…)
But this goes back to a point I made much earlier: Why can’t the two sides have a rational discussion? Because one side lives in a world of “alternative facts.” How can you argue with someone who denies even the most basic facts?
P
PetraG
Guest
I think it is the other way around. I think there are two sets of “facts” because the two sides have stopped having a rational discussion. (Someone even did a study in which they found that having people watch news outlets that catered to viewers with opposed sentiments made people even more entrenched in their unfavorable views than those who don’t!!)
P
phil19034
Guest
No, I can’t give you a case name for this. I just heard / saw it in the news. Apparently, some of the people in the caravan headed to the US been advised to sue the US for violating their constitutional rights.
We will see if anything actually turns out of this
L
LilyM
Guest
The President of the United States is not the ‘average person’ and a speech at a planned-in-advance occasion by him is really not the time to be making things up off the top of his head. Especially when he is trying to use said made-up things to make.his point
It is quite fair to say that for someone in his position and circumstances he was being incredibly ignorant.
It is quite fair to say that for someone in his position and circumstances he was being incredibly ignorant.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, if the plaintiffs in this civil suit have standing to sue and enough of a case to be allowed to commence proceedings then why should they not?
- Status