Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Birthright citizenship is 'not the norm' around the world: Will Cain" video.

  1. ​ @TheWisdomOfLaughing He signed the order so he could get the issue to the SCOTUS. He's not trying to be a dictator. What is you peoples' malfunction?
    11
  2. ​ @EMendonca-mp2mf The Constitution is not clear on the issue, that's why he signed this order, to get it in front of the SCOTUS.
    9
  3. ​ @EMendonca-mp2mf It's clear to me that it was never intended to be used the way it is, in my opinion. The jurisdiction clause is being ignored.
    7
  4. ​@Utmoste8r What? No she's not.
    5
  5.  @GTO33  Russian and Ukraine is not the US. They should care about their own borders and we should care about ours.
    5
  6. That's why he issued to order, to get it in front of SCOTUS.
    3
  7. ​ @MIForrestguy Sure it was. It's how the president gets an issue in front of the SCOTUS.
    3
  8. What does that have to do with the 14th amendment?
    3
  9. How can you believe the peaceful people who were attacked by police with weapons were victims?
    2
  10. ​ @Bigdogspyke Trump knew it was going to be blocked. It's the first step to getting it in front of the SCOTUS.
    1
  11. ​ @Bigdogspyke Trump wants to get the issue to the SCOTUS.
    1
  12. Just go away.
    1
  13. ​ @jeantdsuper8027 Correct. The evidence to support that intention is clear.
    1
  14. ​ @EMendonca-mp2mf What does "subject to the jurisdiction therefore" mean to you? It was never intended to allow people to come here and have automatic citizen babies, it's absurd on its face.
    1
  15.  @dixonarc69  No, it isn't. Several prominent legal scholars assert that it's being applied incorrectly.
    1
  16.  @FosterTravis1071  Some prominent legal scholars and commentators who argue against the interpretation of the 14th Amendment as guaranteeing universal birthright citizenship include: 1. Edward J. Erler Erler, a professor emeritus of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, has written extensively about the 14th Amendment. He argues that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause excludes children born to illegal immigrants or foreign nationals who owe allegiance to another sovereign. 2. John C. Eastman Eastman, a constitutional law professor and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, has advocated the position that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to grant citizenship to children of non-citizens, particularly illegal immigrants. 3. Lino A. Graglia A law professor at the University of Texas, Graglia argued that birthright citizenship is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was meant to apply only to those with complete allegiance to the United States. 4. Peter H. Schuck and Rogers M. Smith In their book Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity, Schuck and Smith question the automatic granting of citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, asserting that citizenship should require consent from the governing political community. 5. Richard A. Epstein Epstein, a prominent legal scholar at the Hoover Institution and New York University, has expressed skepticism about the broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment and its application to birthright citizenship. 6. Judge Richard Posner While not strictly a legal scholar in this context, Posner, a renowned federal judge and legal thinker, has commented critically on the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, questioning its policy implications.
    1
  17.  @dixonarc69  He's not ignoring the Constitution. Trump will abide by the judge's ruling.
    1
  18.  @dixonarc69  It's not clear.
    1
  19. I think they will interpret the "jurisdiction" clause to mean only citizens and those who swear their allegiance to the US.
    1
  20. Trump knew this was going to happen. He had to issue the order to get the issue to the SCOTUS.
    1
  21. What?!?
    1