Birthright

That's the way the 14th reads but it's not how it is being applied to illegals.

Perhaps the Don should sign his EO and then let SCOTUS decide.

of laws and policies that have been selectively enforced based on political expedience. The immigration problem has grown from a trickle to a deluge...a deluge that was, earlier, denied by some to be happening. As I see it, Trump wants to follow the law more closely. Actually, that's the real responsibility of the "executive" branch of government...to make sure laws are respected. I'm not aware of the EO of which you speak other than some sort of leaked documents so I can't address that part. Perhaps you have a better idea of how this should be handled. If so, please state it and leave your negative comments about the president out of the conversation. I say that we have laws already in place and need to follow them or re-write them in a politically neutral way.

For illegals is the topic.
The Don should sign his EO to stop it and let it go through the court system to get a final answer.
Congress won't touch this.

The flood of illegals is another issue congress won't touch.
Some members deny it's happening.
The Don has made it more difficult to apply for legal entry or to extend your visa or get a green card.
That does nothing for people who just walk across the border and just settle in.

it examines what is happening worldwide with this desire to determine citizenship strictly. > https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/world-governments-borders-trump-hong-kong-protests-kashmir-india.html?te=1&nl=jamelle-bouie&emc=edit_jbo_20190823?campaign_id=129&instance_id=11868&segment_id=16437&user_id=67be5a2cf79ec838cb6c0438ccf8f2f2&regi_id=93436870 <
(sorry the link is so long).

I'd say we need to re-write the laws more humanely - though determining what exactly is humane is subjective and messy and not near as "easy" as saying "we don't like _you people_ - get lost, ya freeloaders! " is.

Rick " bleeding heart died-in-the wool liberal - can't help it, raised that way and it just feels right " Jones

"If so, please state it and leave your negative comments about the president out of the conversation."

If the conversation is about immigration, naturalization or the like, it IS a Presidential conversation. He wants it that way. Don't interfere with his re-election plans.
Just read the Isle of Hope excerpts. The Good Ol' Days will comfort you. Or not.

understand what Steven requested is frightening. The conversation is about immigration and their children born here. It has nothing to do with whether you like or dislike the President, but rather whether the TOTAL government of a country as the ability/authority to give citizenship to those children automatically or if they should be regarded as citizens of their PARENTS' home country if those parents are not naturalized citizens of the USA.

Our 14th Amendment was adopted on behalf of Native Americans and slaves only and interpreted by others afterward to include ALL foreign country citizens' children. It has never, to my knowledge, actually been challenged in SCOTUS and it's about damn time it was.

"... and Mexico will pay for it!"

*

Read it again. It's quite generic and I read it as more of a moral and ethical question. Of course we blend the moral and ethical into practical law. Had the question asked if our laws should allow such citizenship, that would be different. The follow-up did mention legality but that does not, on its own change the initial question. The president of the US, as head of the executive branch, is charged with ensuring that federal law is properly and fairly enforced. To act otherwise would constitute dereliction of duty.

The author of the OP, however, has never been shy about being uncomplimentary of this president or the party he represents. Thus, it could easily be construed that the questions were merely bait that would allow for further negative comments within the thread.

I gave my both my opinion and some comments as to why the topic of legal citizenship was being batted around. My 2c.

"... and Mexico will pay for it!"

However, in the very real sense with the actions of Mexico right now, they are expensively paying for it at their end, aren't they, by not allowing so many to cross over for us to provide for?

AND, IF the 'resist' at any cost DEMS would sign the USMC Treaty, that all three countries have agreed to for nearly a year now, it would also save us the money because Mexico again would be paying for it in the long run.

Forest for the trees, drp?????????

Kinda like "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".....BO started that outright LIE and all of the Dem candidates running for Medicare for All or even 'fixing' Obamacare are spouting the same lie because they all know that there are fewer and fewer doctors out there that are still working, going into the field, or they flat out refuse to take Medicare/Medicaid patients anymore.