Trump Signs Executive Order In Violation of 14th Amendment

[K-9]

Birthright citizenship is guaranteed in the Constitution. How is it that a president of the USA cannot know this or not have advisers that should know it for him? Unbelievable, but very concerning as it dovetails with my previous topic on how Hitler overturned Germany’s democracy in 53 days. Trump and his henchmen are wasting little time in their efforts to chip away at the very foundation that holds our freedoms together. A shameful moment in what I predict will be years of shameful moments for this fascist administration. 

Edited 19 hours ago by K-9

[LTS]

I have no doubt he's aware. I also have no doubt he does not care.

Feigning ignorance is a tool often used by those who wish to fool others.

The question we should be asking is, what's the real goal of this and other actions? How CAN it play it out?  What seems like a long shot is sometimes only a long shot because someone isn't determined enough to see it through.

 

[K-9]

The words below by Martin Niemoller, German pastor, former German naval officer in WWI, former supporter of the Nazi regime, and former anti-Semite is pertinent in today’s climate. We can just insert the different groups we seek to marginalize today, from gays to immigrants or any “other” we can think of. 
 

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

[SABRES 0311]

EO

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

14th Amendment 

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

How this reads it seems as long as one biological parent is a U.S. citizen then the child would be granted citizenship. If neither are a U.S. citizen then the child is not considered a U.S. citizen.

The EO applies more stringent application of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, it defines what must already exist (parental citizenship) for the child to be subject to 14th Amendment protection.

 

[LGR4GM]

25 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

EO

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/

14th Amendment 

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

How this reads it seems as long as one biological parent is a U.S. citizen then the child would be granted citizenship. If neither are a U.S. citizen then the child is not considered a U.S. citizen.

The EO applies more stringent application of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, it defines what must already exist (parental citizenship) for the child to be subject to 14th Amendment protection.

 

Tell me why the 14th amendment exists in the first place. 

[K-9]

The issue of children born in the US from both non-citizen parents was settled by the SCOTUS in 1898 in US vs. Wong Kim Ark. But given how the corrupt right wing members of the current SCOTUS enjoy stripping pre-established rights, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if they overturned that 1898 precedent as well. 

The White House will polish this turd seven ways to Sunday as evidenced above.

Edited 12 hours ago by K-9

[SABRES 0311]

57 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Tell me why the 14th amendment exists in the first place. 

Is that a rhetorical question?

The Trump administration is going to have a hard time getting this upheld. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 which means there’s almost 160 years of precedence for the original interpretation/application.

On the other hand, the left has been the dominant political force for questioning modern day application of the second amendment. Not trying to shift the discussion away from the main point. Just saying it’s not unheard of to question how amendments apply to current sociopolitical situations.

IMO I don’t think the EO stays. If it does it will be rescinded once the next liberal president takes office.

[LGR4GM]

15 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Is that a rhetorical question?

The Trump administration is going to have a hard time getting this upheld. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 which means there’s almost 160 years of precedence for the original interpretation/application.

On the other hand, the left has been the dominant political force for questioning modern day application of the second amendment. Not trying to shift the discussion away from the main point. Just saying it’s not unheard of to question how amendments apply to current sociopolitical situations.

IMO I don’t think the EO stays. If it does it will be rescinded once the next liberal president takes office.

Not a rhetorical question at all. And you are trying to shift the conversation. Why does the 1st section of the 14th amendment, exist at all? Why's it there? 

[K-9]

42 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Not a rhetorical question at all. And you are trying to shift the conversation. Why does the 1st section of the 14th amendment, exist at all? Why's it there? 

Damn right he’s shifting the conversation. I’d like to know when, in the face of the left’s “questioning modern day application  of the second Amendment” a left leaning president had the audacity to issue an executive order in violation of it. 

 

[SABRES 0311]

40 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Not a rhetorical question at all. And you are trying to shift the conversation. Why does the 1st section of the 14th amendment, exist at all? Why's it there? 

The original application of the 14th amendment has been interpreted as if you are born here you are a citizen, period. The amount of time that interpretation been in effect sets a precedence that makes the survivability of this EO unlikely.

I believe it’s there, in part, to establish a standard for what qualifies as citizenship. This further degrades the viability of the EO since a standard has already been established and maintained.

In case you are looking for another perspective, Section 1 affirms the idea that if you are born here you are one of us, one people from diverse backgrounds.

Oh, and I’m not trying to shift the conversation. I’m merely providing an example of how amendment application in modern times can and has been questioned. The 2A debate is one of the most recent and recurring examples. Therefore, the intent is to bridge a gap in ideologies to show it’s not a partisan thing.

16 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Damn right he’s shifting the conversation. I’d like to know when, in the face of the left’s “questioning modern day application  of the second Amendment” a left leaning president had the audacity to issue an executive order in violation of it. 

 

Relax. Try reading and asking for an explanation like an adult. 

[LGR4GM]

59 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The original application of the 14th amendment has been interpreted as if you are born here you are a citizen, period. The amount of time that interpretation been in effect sets a precedence that makes the survivability of this EO unlikely.

I believe it’s there, in part, to establish a standard for what qualifies as citizenship. This further degrades the viability of the EO since a standard has already been established and maintained.

In case you are looking for another perspective, Section 1 affirms the idea that if you are born here you are one of us, one people from diverse backgrounds.

Oh, and I’m not trying to shift the conversation. I’m merely providing an example of how amendment application in modern times can and has been questioned. The 2A debate is one of the most recent and recurring examples. Therefore, the intent is to bridge a gap in ideologies to show it’s not a partisan thing.

Relax. Try reading and asking for an explanation like an adult. 

I was just genuinely curious how you viewed the 14th so thank you. 

I don't think the 2nd amendment talk is relevant here, just my personal feelings. 

[SABRES 0311]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I was just genuinely curious how you viewed the 14th so thank you. 

I don't think the 2nd amendment talk is relevant here, just my personal feelings. 

The 2A analogy wasn’t meant to add directly to the 14A discussion other than the fact questioning application of amendments is a back and forth thing.

IMO the EO is part of a much larger issue. Not just domestic but tying it into other EOs that came out. At that point it’s my speculation. 

Regarding this EO I am conflicted when looking at it as a stand alone directive. 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

The 2A analogy wasn’t meant to add directly to the 14A discussion other than the fact questioning application of amendments is a back and forth thing.

IMO the EO is part of a much larger issue. Not just domestic but tying it into other EOs that came out. At that point it’s my speculation. 

Regarding this EO I am conflicted when looking at it as a stand alone directive. 

Once you say 1 generation back, what stops you from saying 2? What stops you from saying ever? Who defines entered the country legally? 

How do we prove who's been here for multiple generations? Can police now stop me and ask for my papers? If the 14th amendment can be changed by executive order, all amendments can. That's not a functioning democracy, that's a dictatorship. 

[SABRES 0311]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Once you say 1 generation back, what stops you from saying 2? What stops you from saying ever? Who defines entered the country legally? 

How do we prove who's been here for multiple generations? Can police now stop me and ask for my papers? If the 14th amendment can be changed by executive order, all amendments can. That's not a functioning democracy, that's a dictatorship. 

I think all the questions you raise is why the EO won’t be upheld. Today it serves one purpose but tomorrow potentially it’s the foundation for some else.

The speculation I have is that it’s not intended to be permanent but rather work in tandem with other directives. That’s a different conversation though regarding the cartels.

Either way I can’t fathom this EO living beyond this term.

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I think all the questions you raise is why the EO won’t be upheld. Today it serves one purpose but tomorrow potentially it’s the foundation for some else.

The speculation I have is that it’s not intended to be permanent but rather work in tandem with other directives. That’s a different conversation though regarding the cartels.

Either way I can’t fathom this EO living beyond this term.

I don't believe it's about cartels.

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't believe it's about cartels.

Like I said it’s my speculation and I can’t prove it either way.