How effective would e-verify actually be?

[WuWei]

@WildRose

It can’t.

A careful review and decision based on the original meaning and intent and BRC for those not legally present in the US is gone and properly so.

It does

All persons born or

Not and.

[zantax]

@MidwestIndy

And yet those children born to illegals in the U.S are non the less granted citizenship, social security numbers, etc. And no one, not even Trump is gonna do a thing about it.

Under the current laws they are, which is neither here nor there in regard to the question of whether the constitution demands they be granted such. Trump could issue an executive order to test it in court at any time and should.

[WildRose]

Keep reading.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

There was no intent for those unlawfully present in the US to be afforded birthright citizenship for their offspring.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

Keep reading, provide the whole sentence.

No need. What are you trying to argue, jurisdiction? That won’t fly.

[zantax]

@MidwestIndy

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense a single court order could stop it temporarily, but as we’ve seen court orders do occasionally get overturned. So in this case there wouldn’t be anything to stop a future administration from appointing a Scotus judge that was more inclined to interpret the 14th to include anyone born in the US even to illegals as is commonly done today.

So ultimately a precisely worded ammendment is essentially the only thing that guarantees an end to birthright citizenship to those not born of current US citizens. I’ll also add that even that doesnt totally end the possibility since yet another ammendment could be passed to nullify that. But in the practical sense amendments are extremely difficult to pass. To entertain the idea that this issue would be like the prohibition problem is unlikely.

So bottom line is single court orders and EOs is really short sighted bandaids for the problem.

Specious logic. Yes, an amendment is the only thing that could prevent a future congress from granting illegal aliens citizenship. Which has nothing to do with whether the current one requires they be given it. You can say the same thing on just about any legislative issue, that the only way to make absolutely sure no future congress passes a new law on something can be prevented with a constitutional amendment prohibiting them from doing so. It’s a non-sequitur.

[WildRose]

It will with a majority of originalists on the court.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@WuWei

A single ruling by the SCOTUS can settle the question if not permanently at least for decades.

No. The 14th Amendment precludes such a decision.

The problem here, whatever the absolute original intent, is that the actual outworking of birthright citizenship is to encourage people from impoverished countries to have their babies in America at the extensive cost to the US taxpayer, particularly middle class taxpayers. There is a reason that no sane country allows this.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

It will with a majority of originalists on the court.

No it won’t. There is no argument anybody can make that anyone born and physically present inside the country is not subject to the jurisdiction. Hell, just physically present is enough.

That dog won’t hunt.

[WuWei]

@Eagle-Keeper

@WuWei

A single ruling by the SCOTUS can settle the question if not permanently at least for decades.

No. The 14th Amendment precludes such a decision.

The problem here, whatever the absolute original intent, is that the actual outworking of birthright citizenship is to encourage people from impoverished countries to have their babies in America at the extensive cost to the US taxpayer, particularly middle class taxpayers. There is a reason that no sane country allows this.

You have to keep the mothers out.

[WildRose]

Their parents have to be legally present under the original intent.

You cannot provide anything that shows there was an intent by those who drafted or ratified the 14th to include children born to parents not legally present in the US.

[conan]

Notice how on the left in one breath they claim you’re responsible for who you hire but on another breath they write laws to make it easier to be sued for asking.

Again I wish libs make up their minds.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

Their parents have to be legally present under the original intent.

You cannot provide anything that shows there was an intent by those who drafted or ratified the 14th to include children born to parents not legally present in the US.

You’re wrong. Born. There is no requirement for the parents to be anything.

[WildRose]

And… Stop chopping it off.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@WuWei

The problem here, whatever the absolute original intent, is that the actual outworking of birthright citizenship is to encourage people from impoverished countries to have their babies in America at the extensive cost to the US taxpayer, particularly middle class taxpayers. There is a reason that no sane country allows this.

You have to keep the mothers out.

And e-verify will not do that.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

Their parents have to be legally present under the original intent.

You cannot provide anything that shows there was an intent by those who drafted or ratified the 14th to include children born to parents not legally present in the US.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Where does it say anything about the parents at all?

[WuWei]

@Eagle-Keeper

@WuWei

The problem here, whatever the absolute original intent, is that the actual outworking of birthright citizenship is to encourage people from impoverished countries to have their babies in America at the extensive cost to the US taxpayer, particularly middle class taxpayers. There is a reason that no sane country allows this.

You have to keep the mothers out.

And e-verify will not do that.

Of course it won’t.

[WuWei]

@WildRose

And… Stop chopping it off.

I don’t know where you getting that idea, but you’re wrong.

[conan]

@WorldWatcher

And hopefully you [c} as the employer under such a system that chooses to ignore the law would be found guilty for such a violation and [a} pay a fine equal, at a minimum 3 times wages and benefits during the illegals period of employment, [b] receive a punitive fine of $25,000 for each illegal hired, and [c] be convicted of a felony with at least 1 year of imprisonment increasing the stay for each illegal hired.

Here folks is you classic authoritarian…one that demand to hold “we the People” responsible while ignoring the proper role of goverment in secure our borders.

[conan]

That’s the problem I have as well…scary IMO.

[WuWei]

@conan

@WorldWatcher

And hopefully you [c} as the employer under such a system that chooses to ignore the law would be found guilty for such a violation and [a} pay a fine equal, at a minimum 3 times wages and benefits during the illegals period of employment, [b] receive a punitive fine of $25,000 for each illegal hired, and [c] be convicted of a felony with at least 1 year of imprisonment increasing the stay for each illegal hired.

Here folks is you classic authoritarian…one that demand to hold “we the People” responsible while ignoring the proper role of goverment in secure our borders.

Hear him! Hear him!