Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Angua » Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:38 pm UTC

I would say it's rare outside of the New World rather than the US. Which is interesting as those are the countries with the highest number of 'immigrant' populations (where 'immigrant' is used to specific people descended from colonisers, etc).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 30, 2018 11:01 pm UTC

Ugh, wtf, thought I edited "US" into "Americas"?

Anyway, it's rare outside the Americas

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:17 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Welp. It's happening.

Trump intends to end birthright citizenship. Luckily, he will be stopped by the supreme cour... oh.

Until it hits the courts, it's just a trial balloon to see what they can get away with. Though I do wonder what a republican court will let them get away with. It'll take work to keep this up, so it's mostly red meat for the anti immigrant xenophobic base.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with this. One of my family members watches some opinion show on Fox News around this time of evening (thankfully with headphones, so nobody else has to hear that drivel), and I noticed that instead of the usual “liberals are ruining the country” (and such nonsense) text across the bottom of the screen, it said “election day turning into referendum on immigration”. I’d bet that it’s a calculated move designed as a last-minute attempt to get more of the GOP base to turn out and vote.

I doubt that even a super republican court would uphold this idea — it’s frankly absurd and sets a precedent I don’t think any judge would want to set. I mean, I don’t think any conservative judge would want to set a precedent that could allow the 2nd amendment to be turned over if a pro-gun control president made it into office.

From the way this fox show is framing the captions, it seems as if they’re promoting the idea that Trump should be able to do this (I don’t actually know because it’s muted), which is disturbing.

User avatar
Eomund
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:48 pm UTC
Location: The Great White North (Left side)

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Eomund » Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:48 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Legally speaking, the SC has never ruled on whether or not the child of illegal immigrants is automatically a citizen. It's been de facto Jus Soli, but if you look at the world, Jus Soli is extremely rare outside the US


Sure. But on the flip side, we've done it that way for a while, and it would be pretty weird to undo it now. Are we going to retroactively challenge the citizenship of a whole lot of folks? That seems messy.

Even a conservative supreme court is probably going to be hesitant to open that can of worms.



Can you imagine the shit show? How many current citizens can prove they are not descendants of undocumented immigrants? Especially considering the records only go back so far...

But besides that I don't see how SCOTUS could "reinterpret" the 14th amendment to deny Jus Soli. I know they have wide latitude but it's pretty black and white. Which is what makes this so scary. You have a sitting President planning to openly defy the constitution. And if that's not an impeachable offence, I don't know what is.

RealisticIdealist
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 5:50 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby RealisticIdealist » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:11 am UTC

Yeah this seems like a major dogwhistle to a white nationalist base again, and I don't think there's anything stopping him from making the executive order. I don't think it will hold up in any of the courts (Although who knows with our current Supreme court).

But even if he thinks he does, an executive order? That's gonna be the first thing the next Democrat president does is revoke it. It's not going to be a permanent change, which is dangerous when presidents can unilaterally change the meaning of an amendment for a few years to accomplish whatever they want.

So yeah, I agree this is likely just a bunch of red meat and trump doesn't actually give a shit about birthright citizenship. But it's still bullshit if he tries it.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6578
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:17 am UTC

If the executive and judiciary agree in their interpretation of the law then the letter of the law is meaningless. Really, the whole checks and balances thing is pretty bullshit when you realize that the branches aren't really that independent since they are all influenced by the same people. Armed insurrection is pretty much the only protection against a totalitarian takeover of the government, and it turns out that the people who hate "the elites" who have been arming up in case they need to overthrow a totalitarian government actually want a totalitarian government that is ran by elites.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:34 am UTC

Does anybody see a dictatorship forming now? Maybe this attempt at co-opting the Constitution won't succeed, but there will come a time...

And this one might.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:34 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:34 am UTC

Thesh wrote:If the executive and judiciary agree in their interpretation of the law then the letter of the law is meaningless. Really, the whole checks and balances thing is pretty bullshit when you realize that the branches aren't really that independent since they are all influenced by the same people. Armed insurrection is pretty much the only protection against a totalitarian takeover of the government, and it turns out that the people who hate "the elites" who have been arming up in case they need to overthrow a totalitarian government actually want a totalitarian government that is ran by elites.

If he has enough judges to go along with something that blatantly wrong, we are in a completely failed democracy and it is time for an actual revolt. I doubt he even has that level of influence over either of his appointees.

ucim wrote:Does anybody see a dictatorship forming now? Maybe this attempt at co-opting the Constitution won't succeed, but there will come a time...

And this one might.

Jose

I doubt this attempt is even close to being feasible. SC judge appointments are spread out enough that your best bet at forming a dictatorship is to make sure all of them are killed while your side controls the presidency and congress. I think it is actually pretty surprising that no one has ever made a serious attempt at doing this before.

RealisticIdealist
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 5:50 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby RealisticIdealist » Wed Oct 31, 2018 1:52 am UTC

Lindsey Graham plans to propose legislation that ends birthright citizenship to follow suit with trump's executive order.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.co ... ship%3famp

His legislation would apparently be an actual change to the constitution and requires 2/3rds of Congress and states, so will never happen. That raises a question though. If he thinks that ending birthright citizenship requires an amendment to the constitution, how can he not ALSO think that an executive order doing the same thing isn't a unilateral infringement of same constitution?

In somewhat more humorous news, an "intelligence firm" that apparently found evidence of sexual misconduct from Robert Mueller has been exposed as the fabrication of right-wing troll jacob wohl, and the ineptitude is hilarious.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailyd ... t-mueller/

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:18 am UTC

RealisticIdealist wrote:If he thinks that ending birthright citizenship requires an amendment to the constitution...
He doesn't. At least he needn't. All this implies is that he believes that an amendment is sufficient, and in that, he's right. He may also believe that an executive order, backed by Trump loyalists, is also sufficient, but why not go for the big guns?

idonno wrote:If he has enough judges to go along with something that blatantly wrong, we are in a completely failed democracy and it is time for an actual revolt. I doubt he even has that level of influence over either of his appointees.
As to the SC being (not?) staffed by enough Trump loyalists, I thought the same of the Republican Party itself while he was running in the primaries. I thought the same as he ran for the actual election. I thought the same as one by one the members of the Republican Party fell in line behind him.

I no longer think the same.

I would like to think the SC would resist him... but nothing else has, and I have no reason to believe the SC would not fall in line behind him just like everyone else. I don't know how he does it, but he does do it, and has an excellent record in this regard. Do not underestimate him.

RealisticIdealist wrote:...and the ineptitude is hilarious.
And the ineptitude does not matter. We are beyond eptitude being a thing. If he said the sky was orange, half the country would believe it while actually sitting under a blue sky.

But I look on the bright side. In a few more years, we won't need to go through the trouble of voting any more.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

gd1
Posts: 349
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:14 am UTC

ucim wrote:But I look on the bright side. In a few more years, we won't need to go through the trouble of voting any more.

Jose


Let's not count chickens before they hatch. Though, on election day I'm not going to bother reading the news. I'll just check it the next day.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

RealisticIdealist
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 5:50 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby RealisticIdealist » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:28 am UTC

ucim wrote:He doesn't. At least he needn't. All this implies is that he believes that an amendment is sufficient, and in that, he's right. He may also believe that an executive order, backed by Trump loyalists, is also sufficient, but why not go for the big guns?

Because the big guns require 15 Democrat senators to flip and states like California to agree and thus is pretty much just a pipe dream. If he thinks something less drastic would work at least it would have a shot at passing. But you're right, I did set up a dichotomy there. Overall I think Graham is just pulling more of the same shit and throwing out red meat. But then, he doesn't need to quite as much right now, since he's not up for reelection

ucim wrote:
RealisticIdealist wrote:...and the ineptitude is hilarious.
And the ineptitude does not matter. We are beyond eptitude being a thing. If he said the sky was orange, half the country would believe it while actually sitting under a blue sky.

But I look on the bright side. In a few more years, we won't need to go through the trouble of voting any more.


Oh I also find the fact that people will still believe it despite the ineptitude scary. The harm of this climate and administration isn't particularly lost on me. But when I see incompetence on that level I'm still gonna laugh at it. Call it a coping mechanism, else I might go insane.
Its pretty unfortunate that there's been so much comedic material lately.

maybeagnostic
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:38 am UTC

ucim wrote:As to the SC being (not?) staffed by enough Trump loyalists, I thought the same of the Republican Party itself while he was running in the primaries. I thought the same as he ran for the actual election. I thought the same as one by one the members of the Republican Party fell in line behind him.

I no longer think the same.

I would like to think the SC would resist him... but nothing else has, and I have no reason to believe the SC would not fall in line behind him just like everyone else. I don't know how he does it, but he does do it, and has an excellent record in this regard. Do not underestimate him.
At the risk of oversimplifying the matter, isn't that all based on his shockingly large and unflinchingly loyal base? Politicians from both parties care about it and the Republicans made the calculation that they are ready to fall in line because then his influence gets them in power and keeps them there. SC judges do need to play politics to get their position but Trump's base has no similar power to keep them there after they've gotten it.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

cphite
Posts: 1362
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cphite » Wed Oct 31, 2018 2:33 pm UTC

Eomund wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Legally speaking, the SC has never ruled on whether or not the child of illegal immigrants is automatically a citizen. It's been de facto Jus Soli, but if you look at the world, Jus Soli is extremely rare outside the US


Sure. But on the flip side, we've done it that way for a while, and it would be pretty weird to undo it now. Are we going to retroactively challenge the citizenship of a whole lot of folks? That seems messy.

Even a conservative supreme court is probably going to be hesitant to open that can of worms.



Can you imagine the shit show? How many current citizens can prove they are not descendants of undocumented immigrants? Especially considering the records only go back so far...


Reinterpreting the 14th is in the realm of possibility; but making it retroactive is quite simply not.

But besides that I don't see how SCOTUS could "reinterpret" the 14th amendment to deny Jus Soli. I know they have wide latitude but it's pretty black and white. Which is what makes this so scary.


Disclaimer: I am neither advocating for nor supporting what Trump is proposing; I think he will (and should) fail.

That said, it's actually not quite as black and white as many would hope it to be. The amendment reads as follows:

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The central issue is going to be the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - that's the grey area. The argument will be that a person who has entered illegally is still under the jurisdiction of their home country, and that the same applies to their child, and that therefore the conditions are not met for citizenship.

On the other side, we have decades of legal precedence saying that children born to undocumented people are, in fact, under the jurisdiction of the United States, and are therefore granted citizenship.

Obviously that's a very simplified breakdown and there will be a lot of other angles thrown into it; but it's going to come down to jurisdiction.

You have a sitting President planning to openly defy the constitution. And if that's not an impeachable offence, I don't know what is.


Eh, that's a rather significant overstatement.

First off, all political and personal issues with Trump aside, he isn't planning to "openly defy" the Constitution. He's planning to issue an executive order that would change the way that the government interprets the Constitution. Some people believe that his intended interpretation is wrong - and that will be up to the courts to decide.

Second... it's not an impeachable offense to issue an executive order that goes against the Constitution. Every president in recent history has issued orders that were ultimately shot down by the courts as being unconstitutional; they don't get impeached for that.

If Trump issues the order, the courts shoot it down, and he orders the various agencies to ignore the court ruling and operate according to the executive order anyway - that would fall into the realm of illegality, and would be something that could potentially lead to impeachment. But simply issuing the order, in and of itself, is not illegal.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:02 pm UTC

Eomund wrote:Can you imagine the shit show? How many current citizens can prove they are not descendants of undocumented immigrants? Especially considering the records only go back so far...

But besides that I don't see how SCOTUS could "reinterpret" the 14th amendment to deny Jus Soli. I know they have wide latitude but it's pretty black and white. Which is what makes this so scary. You have a sitting President planning to openly defy the constitution. And if that's not an impeachable offence, I don't know what is.


Yeah. I figure the vast majority of the population descended from immigrants at some step back there. How well that's documented, ehhhh. It'd be messy for sure. So, I figure whatever they do, they can't start that mess. Nobody actually wants that.

Worst they could reasonably do is get rid of it going forward and grandfather in everyone before then. And even that would be a really broad, difficult ruling.

Far more likely is just that the EO gets slapped down. Unfortunately, in practice, there is no real penalty for making an EO or passing a law that gets slapped down by the courts for being unconstitutional. Trump will not be impeached as a result. It won't even be considered in any circles that matter.

Passing an amendment to do this legally is likewise politically impossible. Even the biggest vaguely possible red wave in the midterms shouldn't give the Republicans enough senate votes.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:46 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Reinterpreting the 14th is in the realm of possibility; but making it retroactive is quite simply not.


why on earth not? our government has already recently proved they are 100% okay with passing completely bullshit retroactively applying laws so long as they target reviled groups, i don't see how it's simple to presume the children of immigrants would be any safer.

from the text of fosta, emphasis mine wrote:(Sec. 4) The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill.

The amendments apply regardless of whether alleged conduct occurs before, on, or after this bill's enactment.


people are constantly saying "of course we can't do X" about shit that has already occurred. of course we can't retroactively nullify people's citizenship, guess what that's literally already happening with or without any eo or law, and yet EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALREADY OCCURRING people stay pretending that this is some kind of scare tactic/idle threat to drum up the base. y'all, it can be both an attempt to stir up the base and also something that they 100%, absolutely, will definitely do to people. they are already stripping citizenship from latine citizens on the flimsiest of pretexts, they would definitely not hesitate to retroactively do it and if you think this would be The Tipping Point that would make people Stand Up to this administration then i have a boat to sell you.

i am Extremely sore on this point because my best friend who was a citizen from birth, not an immigrant, not a naturalized citizen, a born us citizen, was just deported after having his citizenship stripped. and despite the reports of this happening to thousands of people, despite watching it happening to someone i have known since childhood, people will still sit here and tell me "no that is not a thing that can happen we won't ever do that" ... even though we're currently already doing it, even though the president is promising to do it, even though we have no reason whatsoever to believe that any republican shills will stand up to anything he does, even though he consistently dogwhistles and caters to white nationalists and ending birthright citizenshipis a goal of theirs. but somehow despite every bit of evidence to the contrary we're supposed to just believe that each new announced horror... will be the end of the progression, that magically the constitution and the benevolence of white america (which have historically done such a good job of safeguarding the rights of minorities!) will stand up while fireworks burst and a bald eagle soars overhead and act as a shield, THIS time but not all the other times, against the facism of this administration. sure. sure.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:48 pm UTC

ETA: Beaten to the post by natraj -- point still stands, though.
cphite wrote:Reinterpreting the 14th is in the realm of possibility; but making it retroactive is quite simply not.
This is dangerously naive. Presuming this worked, it would absolutely not be beyond the realm of possibility to apply it retroactively. This, in fact, would be the next "logical" step.

It carries the additional benefit of invalidating votes that might challenge Republican leadership. And voter suppression is a key component of the Republican platform.
cphite wrote:
You have a sitting President planning to openly defy the constitution. And if that's not an impeachable offence, I don't know what is.


Eh, that's a rather significant overstatement.

First off, all political and personal issues with Trump aside, he isn't planning to "openly defy" the Constitution. He's planning to issue an executive order that would change the way that the government interprets the Constitution. Some people believe that his intended interpretation is wrong - and that will be up to the courts to decide.

Second... it's not an impeachable offense to issue an executive order that goes against the Constitution. Every president in recent history has issued orders that were ultimately shot down by the courts as being unconstitutional; they don't get impeached for that.

If Trump issues the order, the courts shoot it down, and he orders the various agencies to ignore the court ruling and operate according to the executive order anyway - that would fall into the realm of illegality, and would be something that could potentially lead to impeachment. But simply issuing the order, in and of itself, is not illegal.
You don't need to do something illegal to get impeached.

That being said, you are correct; issuing an executive order like this is hardly an impeachable offense. Trump has done (and will continue to do) plenty of impeachable things; arguing that this order would be among them is a big stretch.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:04 pm UTC

natraj wrote:
cphite wrote:Reinterpreting the 14th is in the realm of possibility; but making it retroactive is quite simply not.


why on earth not? our government has already recently proved they are 100% okay with passing completely bullshit retroactively applying laws so long as they target reviled groups, i don't see how it's simple to presume the children of immigrants would be any safer.


Bluntly, because it would affect a lot of people that are not their target. Military kids, immigrants who are not from south of the border, etc. Doing it retroactively would be difficult to apply to only a single group, but not anywhere else. Legally, there's no real difference between a citizen with parents who were Mexican citizens vs a citizen with parents who were English citizens.

Judges are not going to want to dive into that mess. They're probably already quite unlikely to want to open up the realm of reinterpreting the 14th in general, but the latter's way easier to justify than the former. Removing citizenship from a crapton of people via retroactive rules reinterpretation would be a nightmare. Why would they embrace that when they can essentially get what they want with merely reinterpreting going forward?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:07 pm UTC

Removing citizenship is much different than charging citizens with sex crimes. I dont think it would be able to be applied retroactively, but if it does that's basically my Rubicon.

As for military brats, the US already has Jus Sanguini as well as Soli.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:12 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As for military brats, the US already has Jus Sanguini as well as Soli.


One need not be a citizen to be in the US military. So, if one went retroactively, you'd certainly hit non citizens who served honorably, and had a kid with another non citizen, and said kid is likely also military, because of military tradition in families. This'd get you some examples that would be fairly obviously awful to deal with for Republicans. They can get cheers for coming down hard against immigration from our southern border, but if they start hitting people that Republicans identify with, they have a problem.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: Bluntly, because it would affect a lot of people that are not their target. Military kids, immigrants who are not from south of the border, etc. Doing it retroactively would be difficult to apply to only a single group, but not anywhere else. Legally, there's no real difference between a citizen with parents who were Mexican citizens vs a citizen with parents who were English citizens.


ah, yes, what a sound and convincing argument, because laws are enforced by machines and not by humans with discretion as to when to selectively enforce them, and we have absolutely no precedence whatsoever for an unequal application of laws, that's never happened in the entire history of the United States what a good and compelling argument you have just made.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
natraj wrote:
cphite wrote:Reinterpreting the 14th is in the realm of possibility; but making it retroactive is quite simply not.


why on earth not? our government has already recently proved they are 100% okay with passing completely bullshit retroactively applying laws so long as they target reviled groups, i don't see how it's simple to presume the children of immigrants would be any safer.


Bluntly, because it would affect a lot of people that are not their target. Military kids, immigrants who are not from south of the border, etc. Doing it retroactively would be difficult to apply to only a single group, but not anywhere else. Legally, there's no real difference between a citizen with parents who were Mexican citizens vs a citizen with parents who were English citizens.

You seem to have immense trust this would be applied equally to whites and non-whites, and I'm not sure where that trust comes from.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:33 pm UTC

Selective enforcement is a thing, but, say, stopping and frisking with a bias is easier to pull off without paperwork, laws, etc than assigning citizenship. The latter affects a wide range of topics. If they intend to not make uncomfortable examples, but also to discriminate against a specific race, explicit policies would be necessary. Mere bias would not suffice to avoid everyone who could make a bad PR example.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:37 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Removing citizenship is much different than charging citizens with sex crimes. I dont think it would be able to be applied retroactively, but if it does that's basically my Rubicon.
  • Did you miss the post natraj just made where he pointed out that this is already happening?
  • We've passed so many "Rubicons" at this point that we might as well just build a bridge over it and install an EZPass.
  • Seriously, this is your Rubicon? Not the children-in-internment-camps thing?
Sidenote: I'm so tired of the media saying so many variations of "THIS TIME TRUMP WENT TOO FAR!". He went too far back when he opened his bid by accusing Mexican immigrants of being rapists. That was the Rubicon. We passed it around two years ago. Trump's been raiding and looting America ever since.

If there's one thing you can say about Trump, it's that he never made it unclear who the fuck he is. It's everyone else who has been wringing their hands and acting like there's some invisible line he has to cross before we all wake the fuck up and realize the President is a deranged racist lunatic who wants to put children in cages and kill brown people.
CorruptUser wrote:As for military brats, the US already has Jus Sanguini as well as Soli.
Why are we even talking about military brats? In the vast majority of these cases, one of their parents would be a US citizen -- which means exemptions could be (and depending on whether or not they were white, likely would be) made for them. Even if this weren't the case, military kids overseas are already in an extremely complicated position in regards to their citizenship; it's not like anyone's fighting tooth and nail among Trump supporters to look after them.

Retroactive revocation of citizenship is more than possible; again, it's already happening -- and if this amendment goes through, it'll probably be applied even more broadly.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:49 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5440
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:49 pm UTC

cphite wrote:The central issue is going to be the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - that's the grey area. The argument will be that a person who has entered illegally is still under the jurisdiction of their home country, and that the same applies to their child, and that therefore the conditions are not met for citizenship.

If a person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then US laws don't apply to them -- that's what "subject to the jurisdiction of" means. So if that's the thing they're hang to hang their non-citizenship claims on, then they're going to have to give up a lot in exchange for it.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:53 pm UTC

Snowcrash. I think that sums it up.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:If they intend to not make uncomfortable examples, but also to discriminate against a specific race, explicit policies would be necessary. Mere bias would not suffice to avoid everyone who could make a bad PR example.

Catching some white people in the racist net wouldn't be bad PR examples, it'd be an example they'd point to and claim that it's proof that it isn't racist. Just like they do with white people killed by police or white people who receive unreasonably harsh sentences or whatever.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 31, 2018 4:54 pm UTC

cphite wrote:The central issue is going to be the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - that's the grey area. The argument will be that a person who has entered illegally is still under the jurisdiction of their home country, and that the same applies to their child, and that therefore the conditions are not met for citizenship.

On the other side, we have decades of legal precedence saying that children born to undocumented people are, in fact, under the jurisdiction of the United States, and are therefore granted citizenship.
The phrase is, however, not "subject solely to the jurisdiction thereof". Even if one is subject to the laws of Outer Tazmania, one is still subject to the laws of the United States while they are here (with exceptions for diplomats, who are immune).

The 14th amendment is quite clear. These people are citizens. Trump's executive order nullifies the 14th amendment. If that is allowed to stand, then next to nothing would stand in the way of nullifying any other clause of the Constitution, and it will become (as Bush once said), "just a piece of paper".

And Trump's attempt, and its support, should be regarded with the highest alarm.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:00 pm UTC

ucim wrote:And Trump's attempt, and its support, should be regarded with the highest alarm.
I'm a blue collar worker; I work alongside plenty of other blue collar workers. The number of coworkers I've heard express some variation of "This seems like a great idea" over the past few days is both sickening and terrifying. It's purely anecdotal, but it's been a sobering reminder that I may exist in a country that supports not just the President nullifying the Constitution, but nullifying citizenship.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:01 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:If they intend to not make uncomfortable examples, but also to discriminate against a specific race, explicit policies would be necessary. Mere bias would not suffice to avoid everyone who could make a bad PR example.

Catching some white people in the racist net wouldn't be bad PR examples, it'd be an example they'd point to and claim that it's proof that it isn't racist. Just like they do with white people killed by police or white people who receive unreasonably harsh sentences or whatever.


That's fairly easy to do with criminals. It's a far less positive thing if it's law abiding military folks. The former are not really cared about by the right. The latter are.

Now, as ucim says, even if no retroactive enforcement is considered, it's still an extremely large change that ought to be viewed with significant concern. We can discard that unlikely consideration, and still be left with a very worrying possibility. I think even that will be a hard sell for the courts, but *if* it makes it through, it'd be huge.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:That's fairly easy to do with criminals. It's a far less positive thing if it's law abiding military folks. The former are not really cared about by the right. The latter are.

Yeah, that's why the right are fully in support of veterans who've been deported or barred entry into the US.

Like holy fuck how naive can you get to say things would never happen that have already been happening?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:06 pm UTC

So, I'm not going to read Tyndmyr's post -- but I'm going to bet twenty dollars that they, like CorruptUser before, also ignores natraj's post where he points out that citizenship has already been retroactively revoked for American citizens, including someone natraj personally knows and cares about.

If I'm wrong, someone else feel free to tell me and I'll donate the twenty dollars to charity or something.

But let's face it: I know I'm not wrong.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

Largely criminal veterans who were never citizens.

It's a different thing if folks were accepted as citizens, and this was revoked. Closer to home. There's enough military members that by virtue of odds, one will be able to get extremely sympathetic examples. This doesn't serve the interests of republican politicians. Doesn't matter if it's a fight they can win or not, it only weakens them.

Whereas if they avoid going retroactive, they can still celebrate a big win. Yeah, it will cause the same problem eventually...but that's a far off problem, with a lack of victims to put on TV right now. From a political standpoint, it's not even similar. Such a thing can be ignored on the basis of most of the electorate not looking that far in advance. Why would they incur the liability when they get to satisfy their anti-immigrant base either way?

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It's a different thing if folks were accepted as citizens, and this was revoked. Closer to home.

Whereas if they avoid going retroactive, they can still celebrate a big win.


anyway being a person of color in America is literally just an experience of constant daily gaslighting, wherein you can specifically and directly say "this is a thing that is currently occurring and has ocurred in my life and my family, in front of my eyes, to people i know, and then the response will be"... so anyway IF this INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY THING maybe, possibly, occurs in the future, which it won't, because it's so improbable, THEN we can talk"
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Largely criminal veterans who were never citizens.

It's a different thing if folks were accepted as citizens, and this was revoked. Closer to home. There's enough military members that by virtue of odds, one will be able to get extremely sympathetic examples. This doesn't serve the interests of republican politicians. Doesn't matter if it's a fight they can win or not, it only weakens them.

Whereas if they avoid going retroactive, they can still celebrate a big win. Yeah, it will cause the same problem eventually...but that's a far off problem, with a lack of victims to put on TV right now. From a political standpoint, it's not even similar. Such a thing can be ignored on the basis of most of the electorate not looking that far in advance. Why would they incur the liability when they get to satisfy their anti-immigrant base either way?

All it requires to make sure this disproportionately targets people of color is enforce it in specific neighborhoods and through specific contact lists. Also the US already feels pretty comfortable deporting veterans, why do you think this will look bad now?
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7367
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:19 pm UTC

natraj wrote:anyway being a person of color in America is literally just an experience of constant daily gaslighting, wherein you can specifically and directly say "this is a thing that is currently occurring and has ocurred in my life and my family, in front of my eyes, to people i know, and then the response will be"... so anyway IF this INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY THING maybe, possibly, occurs in the future, which it won't, because it's so improbable, THEN we can talk"
See, now I feel like I cheated. Because I bet on racism -- and if you want to win a bet, you always bet on racism.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:20 pm UTC

(also it's not been like it would be the first time we have specifically revoked the citizenship of a veteran in order to deport them, i guarantee you no matter what line the administration is considering that people pretend is Too Far, we've ALREADY DONE IT.)
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:24 pm UTC

natraj wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It's a different thing if folks were accepted as citizens, and this was revoked. Closer to home.

Whereas if they avoid going retroactive, they can still celebrate a big win.


anyway being a person of color in America is literally just an experience of constant daily gaslighting, wherein you can specifically and directly say "this is a thing that is currently occurring and has ocurred in my life and my family, in front of my eyes, to people i know, and then the response will be"... so anyway IF this INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY THING maybe, possibly, occurs in the future, which it won't, because it's so improbable, THEN we can talk"


Yes, we're talking about the portion of the republican base that's anti-immigration. That's their standard.

They don't honestly care a great deal about the people currently being deported. But if it happens to people who they identify with, then they'll care.

Bluntly, you toss up examples that are non-criminal, military veterans and white, and it'll be way too close to home for many. The fact that examples exist that are one of those does not matter to them, though.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:38 pm UTC

There are white veterans already being fucked over, and surely even you haven't been living under a rock so big that you're unaware people can be convinced someone was a criminal whether or not they actually were.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:41 pm UTC

And as we've been mentioning and citing examples for, enforcement can very easily be targeted specifically at people who don't fit your categories and have Republicans cheer.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests