Trump and the 14th Amendment
Section 1 if the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states:
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.
In today’s ROT, Combat Historian broke the news that Trump is planning an Executive Order to end the practice of “anchor babies” where when illegal aliens give birth on US soil, that child is automatically a US citizen. While this practice is not unknown in the world, it is rare and found in countries with a history of slavery; even though the emancipated parent(s) is/are not citizens, their children born on US soil are. This now causes problems.
For example “birth tourism” is a flourishing business. Pregnant women fly here, stay at special hotels and pay sometimes extraordinarily high fees for “concierge services” designed to facilitate the birth of their children. The benefit to the family is that the child is thereby eligible to claim U.S. social welfare, be educated at much lower cost and obtain certain medical benefits for life here.
It also allows for “chain migration” of immediate relatives of the anchor baby to petition for visas.
President Trump is moving forward with a plan to end birthright citizenship via executive action.
“On immigration, some legal scholars believe you can get rid of birthright citizenship without changing the Constitution,” Axios’ Jonathan Swan asked President Trump in a video interview.
“With an executive order,” Trump replied.
“Exactly,” Swan followed up. “Have you thought about that?”
“Yes,” Trump replied.
“Tell me more,” Swan implored.
“It was always told to me that you needed a Constitutional amendment–guess what? You don’t,” Trump said. “Number one, you don’t need that. Number two, you can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they’re saying I can do it with just an executive order. Now, how ridiculous–we are the only country in the world where a person comes in, has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years with all of those benefits? It’s ridiculous. It’s ridiculous–and it has to end.”
Swan asked if Trump has discussed this matter with legal counsel for the White House and he confirmed he has, and that this is “in the process.”
“It will happen–with an executive order, that’s what you’re talking about right?” Trump said. “I didn’t think anybody knew that but me, I thought I was the only one.”
Revoking birthright citizenship would have immediate and far-reaching consequences. It would mean the children of illegal aliens, even if born in the United States, would not be bestowed U.S. citizenship upon birth. It would also likely deter the practice of foreigners having “anchor babies,” where they aim to give birth to children on U.S. soil so as to obtain U.S. citizenship for their children at birth.
In fact, the anchor baby population–those born in the United States to at least one illegal alien parent–has skyrocketed in recent years. According to a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, the anchor baby population per year now exceeds the number of U.S. citizen births from American citizens.
Trump moving forward on such plans would likely set off a legal and political battle of epic proportions, as lawsuits would come in challenging the order’s legality and the president’s authority to act via executive action on this front. But there also remains a possibility, if Republicans hold the House in next week’s midterm elections and add seats in the Senate, that a more permanent legislative fix not dependent on who is in the White House could come for dealing with ending birthright citizenship.
Lawsuits falling like autumn leaves. If the planets align and Reps keep the House, expand their majority in the Senate, and Trump gets another bite at the SCOTUS apple, this could actually happen. Someone once said, “Elections have consequences.” VOTE!
Category: Illegal Immigrants, Legal
…and if the courts say you do need a Constitutional amendment after all, trying it this way first might be a good way to start the ball rolling on that.
(To pass the amendment would require ratification by 3/4 of the states…but at least it goes by “states” not “popular vote,” so big-population blue states wouldn’t be able to kill it alone.)
I like this. It’s Constitution Tuesday! The 14th A’s first line had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. As one of the Civil War amendments, its purpose was to ensure that emancipated slaves were citizens. That’s it. The second line precluded a state’s legal exclusion of these new citizens from all manner of things extended to whites by government. Back to the first line. There’s an often overlooked phrase in there that is not just so many words and superfluous. The words are, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Being born here clearly is not alone sufficient to merit citizenship.
“The words are, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Being born here clearly is not alone sufficient to merit citizenship.”
I’m not so sure about that. Even if you’re just here on vacation, you are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and its states, i.e. our laws. Therefore, if you are born while your mom is on vacation here, our laws are applicable to you as well and you become a US citizen. At least that is how I would interpret that phrase, but IANAL. Either way, I agree that citizenship shouldn’t be granted by being born in the right spot at the right time. But that is a decision the legislative branch should make and not for the executive to decide. As you rightfully pointed out, people were upset when Obama over-extended his authority and we should be concerned now as well, regardless of what political ideology we subscribe to.
I can clearly see where you get that take but the phrase is understood to mean that if your visiting mother’s country regards the baby as a citizen of that country, then the jurisdiction of the US is not exclusive. A conflict of laws may exist. That’s the view which prompted me to write what I did.
That seems, a stretch. What foreign laws apply here on our soil, that are actually enforceable here on our soil? Even if we have some sort of treaty of reciprocity, the treaty is effectively our law, yes?
Any exemptions or extensions are because our laws say so, I would think.
At least one Supreme Court justice (RBG) has said publicly that American courts should use precedents from foreign courts, IOW applying foreign law to Americans. Bets that she’s not doing that already? Or you could just do a search for “Sharia Law in America”.
You sir, must be the head of the Havard Law Review. Jurisdiction means you are a citizen of that nation, as written and understood by the founders. Diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of our government. Indians were considered outside the jurisdiction of the government and hence not citizens till the 1920s.
But you have entertained us. I’d love to hear your interpretation of the 1st and 2nd amendments.
There should be some modification that specifically takes into account the criminal intent of wetbacking into the US for the purpose of popping out an instant citizen. That or modify the laws in such a way that the kid stays, and the two illegal parents go back without it. Rutholess, true dat. I don’t care. I have always hated to see people gaming the system and getting over. Federal law already states that people engaged in a criminal act cannot benefit from that act. Coming here to create an instant citizen is committing several crimes already. They don’t get to stay no matter what.
Other than on diplomatic passport, how is someone within our borders not subject to our laws/jurisdiction?
That they are seems clear to me. They have no immunity to our laws.
I also am -very- skeptical of suddenly-discovered new readings emanating in the penumbra. Too easy to gut the meaning if it is constantly subject to re-interpretation.
Seems the debate at the time was “are some folks citizens or not”, and a bunch of folks were “not” until the 14th was passed and ratified.
I have personal, firsthand experience with some folks who think that only white-English descendants of the correct forefathers are citizens, and read all of that into the current wording, 14th and all.
No good comes from that sort of thing. Taking the long view here. There are folks who would de-person most of the folks on this forum, given half a chance to “interpret”.
I would predict that if Trump does try the executive order route, it will be swiftly snarled in endless litigation, probably tossed by SCOTUS, and absolutely voided by #46 or 47.
We can’t afford for this to be a political football every 4-8 years. The consequences would be …. violent.
The idea is that if a child born in the US is also subject to the jurisdiction of another nation by virtue of blood citizenship, the foreign jurisdiction is accomplished. Look at it this way: Could another nation confer citizenship on a newborn delivered to a US citizen in the USA? Of course not. The US jurisdiction is total and complete. Not so with the child born to a foreigner who is in the USA when she gives birth. In such a case, the foreign nation confers citizenship of that nation on the child. That’s an exercise in foreign jurisdiction over which the US has no control. Without that control, US jurisdiction is lacking. It is not about criminal jurisdiction. I don’t know of any newborns who commit crimes.
What prevents a foreign nation from granting citizenship as they please, even to one born here? A child born of grandparents who came from of the grand duchy of Fenwick. Might they not recognize the bloodline?
So what of it? That dilutes not one whit the US citizenship, rhight?
What of folks here, who qualify for Israeli citizenship? No distress to thier US citizenship, right?
Who decides who is “not really” one of us? Seems to be certainly destined for abuse.
If the matter is to be settled, amend the constitution. We cannot long tolerate “what rule applies -this- admin?” On something so essential.
I still think the “citizen” angle isn’t going to slow immigration. They are coming here to escape hellish states, expecting to be “off the books”. Keeping the kids born here in similar state sounds like ” perpetual underclass -ripe to exploit or torment revolution”. The originating country won’t take back the now-americanized kids.
End the idiocy called “welfare state” , require assimilation education, and I think we will be -far- better off. -all- of us.
As a non lawyer-dumb grunt/tanker, if they are subject to our jurisdiction, are they required to register with selective service upon turning 18? Can they be selected for jury duty? Can they get a passport?
Just curious
Where a birth is concerned, there are two ways worldwide for recognizing citizenship: blood and place. The predominant one, by far, is blood. That is, if a woman who is a citizen of country X gives birth in country Y, the child is a citizen of country X. The other, place, is relatively rare. As you can guess, in the example given, the child would be a citizen of country Y.
Granted.
The predominant form of goverment is … crappy. The predominant economy is … crappy.
Ours seems -better-, and far less prone to fratricide.
There are other ways to address this. I would prefer the legislative route, by amendment of the INS statute. If successful, it would most certainly be challenged immediately and the Supreme Court couldn’t avoid the matter for too very long. I don’t like the ‘phone and pen’ approach made infamous by President Red Line. That’s not the way to do business, even if I approve of the purpose, which, in this case, I most certainly do.
I prefer the legislative route also, but being as the House and the Senate are full of cowards, perhaps Alberich is right and this will get the ball rolling and force them to do their frickin’ jobs. For once.
100% agreement. An Executive Order can be rescinded by any succeeding President. I like the idea of using the 14th as intended, but it has to be a more permanent change than an EO.
I agree. However, once again, Trump is playing the game by the rules the Dems play by. Though I agree that the procedural means is flawed, what’s the old saying? Turnabout is fair play?
^this^^that^ and the other two! Do something, even if ain’t the best way to do it. Strange, ain’t it, that so many dims, lefties, other worlders et al, think or say that the USA ain’t all that, or has never been great, or whatever? If we are all that bad, why are so many trying to get in here and become citizens? Is it because of all the “free shit” that the working people pay for and they want some. Seems to me the people who come here legally and become citizens are the ones who really take advantage of the opportunities that are available to those who try. Most of us are immigrants of some sort. Some of us are even more than 1/1024th deserving of being here….Speaking of which, the unintended consequences of the 14th A came back to haunt some of the supporters when lawsuits showed that it extended the same rights to the natives.
All reasonable views in my opinion, but, when it comes to constitutional matters such as separation of powers, I prefer the Marquess of Queensbury Rules to a street fight.
There is a time and place for both, but Queensbury Rules are the best starting point.
Never, ever forget that a goal of the Left is to get as many people as possible to abandon our rules of society. Only then can something -else- be imposed, “to restore order from the inevitable failure”
Don’t feed the Marxists.
I agree with 2/17. This provision was never intended to apply to anyone other than the children of former slaves. Only an insane nation would find that illegally entering and dropping a baby would confer citizenship and the right to emigrate everyone back to the child’s parents, grandparents, uncles and cousins was warranted.
Bringing in the family is another law.
We can have birthright citizenship -without- reunification.
Simply change the law to remove the family angle. That ends “chain” immigration.
I ran across a brief article by Andrew McCarthy this morning that does a good job of laying out the issues, also providing links to further discussion. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/donald-trump-end-birthright-citizenship-by-executive-order/
And a modest proposal from Marc Randazza – https://www.popehat.com/2018/10/30/randazza-damn-right-we-should-get-rid-of-birthright-citizenship/
A modest proposal indeed and a prime candidate for Poe’s law. 🙂 I read the article and agreed with some points at first, but it quickly drifted off into, shall we say, guano insanity. How’s the point system working out for China, btw?
And from Russia with love tourism.https://youtu.be/VAC_Z70Ze8g
How about this: include the phrase “whose parents have applied for US citizenship prior to the child’s birth”?
Would that resolve the issue, or make it more tangled?
I don’t like the ‘phone and pen’ approach, but if it stirs conversation – well, reasoned conversation – it will fan the flames of something… or other.
“”How about this: include the phrase “whose parents have applied for US citizenship prior to the child’s birth”?””
Strike “applied for” and insert “completed”.
How about this: include the phrase “whose parents have completed US citizenship prior to the child’s birth”?
I think they would have a better shot at this using the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ concept.
If you broke the law to get in the country, nothing you do from then on is lawful. Much like if a car gets stopped with out probable cause, and a dead hooker is found in the truck, the dead hooker goes away.
I suspect that might run afoul of the prohibition on “corruption of the blood”.
Your parents crimes cannot vest to you. Period.
Just because this is a situation that has happened, has been challenged and has failed the challenge… If mom and dad are divorced and dad is paying child support based on income from business that are found to be funded by illegal activities which are then confiscated by the government due to said illegal activities, the previous child support amounts allocated for the children are no longer funded. The si s of the father are being vested to the child. If mom and dad are not divorced and the home purchased with illegally gotten gains is confiscated, the child/children are now homeless. Again, the sins of the father. Both of these scenarios happen, and have been challenged on this idea of the sins of the parent not being vested on the children, and both of these scenarios have failed in court. The successful argument is, the benefits the child received were from illegal activity, period. Not being a lawyer, I wonder how sacrosanct this idea, applied to parents illegally here, actually is. Other countries deny visas, even short term visitor or business visas to women beyond their six month of pregnancy. Exceptions are routinely made, but with stipulation that if the mother gives birth while on that visa, the child will not be granted natural citizenship. As others have said, if the parent is not here legally, the child born here is not legally here either, as the event (birth) is fruit of the poison tree, kinda literally. I agree with others, I do not want to see this as an EO. Nor do I even want to see an end to chain-migration ended with an EO. I’m not so sure I think enacting either such an EO would force Congress to act before the 9th blocked it. I’m also not yet confident in the SCOTUS being strictly Constitutional enough to overturn such an action by the 9th. The worst possible outcome of this course would be the SCOTUS siding with the 9th, which would in effect guarantee the failure of any Constitutional Amendment while exonerating the Congress from taking… Read more »
It almost seems that if you broke the law to get into, and remain in, the country, you’re actually denying that you’re subject to the jurisdiction of that country.
A neat argument. Haven’t seen that one before.
There are times when the intent of a law should probably supersede specific wording. It’s doubtful if the 14th Amendment was written to accommodate maternity tourism, or anchor babies and chain migration. Especially to the extent that the CBO is reporting more children born to non-citizens than U.S. citizens.
Clearly, at least it seems to me, the 14th Amendment is being used to game the immigration system. Yet another example of why we can’t have nice things.
It might also be pointed out that constitutional amendments are not always carved in stone. For example, the Eighteenth Amendment establishing a nationwide prohibition on alcohol turned out to be a non-starter that was eventually repealed.
We don’t ignore the 18th, we repealed it. Amendments are specified (two ways). What we cannot allow is “re interpreting” , as someone can usually find a way to warp it to junk.
See “collective right” meaning “not a right”
“Don’t emanate in the penumbra”
My wife having worked for the State her whole career, told me absolute HORROR stories of anchor babies and their entitle minded mothers. It was all “give me, give me, give me” and, “I know I have a right to food, clothing, housing, medical and money. When they were declaring what they had coming to them they spoke wonderful English. But ask them about who else lived in their home or any details that could possibly reduce their benefits and all of a sudden it was, “no habla!”.
So fuck them, torch that anchor chain off the ship and kick their sorry asses back to the shitholes they want to turn our country into.
NO SYMPATHY HERE WHATSOEVER!
The welfare state is the corruption. End the free-flow of handouts, end the “gimmies”.
The roots of the 14th Amendment were to counteract the much maligned Dred Scott Supreme Court decision where the Court ruled that children born in the US from certain classes of people (including free black people) could be denied citizenship. The Court in the late 19th Century went on to specifically rule in favor of a man with Chinese parents but born in California in what would now be derogatively referred to as an “anchor baby” case.
I think even this Court would not overturn this precedent, especially via an executive order. Nobody wants to be on the Dred Scott side of things. As such, only a Constitutional amendment would do it, and no way is 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the states going to vote for that.
Allow me to retort…
Regarding ‘anchor baby’, what’s your point? I don’t care how ‘derogative’ it is, consider it short hand for ‘the offspring of (an) illegal alien/s, that for no explicable reason, are bestowed citizenship to a culture that may or may not be accepted by their criminal parent(s)’.
Also, “Nobody wants to be on the Dred Scott side of things.”
Really? Are you sure about that?
I disagree wholeheartedly with the decision but the rational reaction to a haphazard knee jerk is not an equal haphazard knee jerk, especially in the context of reconstruction.
Hell, if fair was fair there’d be a crap-ton of law stricken from the 1840-1940s because the North knew they could get away with sh*t.
Anchor babies are big business.
Two and a half years ago, We sold our house in Howard County, Maryland to a Chinese woman for an all cash, full price deal. The house was 6,500 sq ft, with four bedrooms and five baths. The buyer paid an extra $20,000 to have us out in two weeks. She had the fever for the house. We threw in the snow shovel into the deal and moved to Florida. Come to find out from our former neighbors, the woman doesn’t live in the house, and is running an anchor baby operation for Chinese women. I understand the woman bought a few more houses in the area, and is doing the same with them. My old neighhood has an HOA, and they are going to take action to end the operation. They think they will be unsuccessful given the money they have available for legal work.
Good luck President Trump.
I guess I knew that it was possible this was going on, but I had no idea it was actually happening on a scale like this.
What’s the end game? I suppose having dual citizenship between US and China would give someone pretty good standing in the future business world. Or is it more related to chain migrating the family over?
A practical point:
If we start arguing about who is “really” a citizen, we then get to “who gets their citizenship revoked”.
I absolutely -guarantee- I will fight for mine. I expect most readers of this forum will do so, with great gusto.
I sincerely believe that there are -many- folks out there who feel the same, and would be …. enthusiastic …. in defending themselves. And there are so very many ways one can fight….
Now, imagine the result if we as a society start trying to disenfranchise and de- citizen significant numbers of folks. Imagine.
No.
They won’t wait for the inevitable boxcars with the barbed wire windows. Not this time. The streets would run red with blood, and copses would pile up like cordwood.
If they can de-person Jose, because Papa snuck in, then who -else- could be de-personed like that? Or is anyone foolish enough to assume that there is no fence-jumper somewhere back in their own tree? Or perhaps just someone who has no documentation because they simply got off the boat in some port somewhere, and got to work assimilating? Or who just lost the papers, shrugged, and went on with being a new American.
Would you hand this terrible implement to your worst political opponents? If you are for this, you may soon find yourself on the receiving end. And some folks might engage in such political mayhem -enthusiastically-. Who would be immune?
Perhaps the rule might be, starting 1 November…, but if that can be done, the logical next step is to address those before. And there are folks who think that most of the folks in this country are non-citizens because “bloodline”.
Don’t open that Pandora’s box folks. You won’t like being on the wrong end of the inquisition.
Horsefeathers. At the risk of a pun, things get “grandfathered” into the legal system all time. Nobody is talking about rounding up and loading on boxcars anybody who might be 1/1024th illegal because great-great-great-great uncle Pedro swam the Rio Grande.
All of those older illegals would also be eliminated from consideration by the prior 1986 amnesty. Something which, it might be pointed out, was passed over opposition with a warning at the time that all an amnesty would do is create a process of “serial” amnesty legislation in years to follow.
I also didn’t see any of the other TAH comments throwing rocks at legal immigration.
11B-Mailclerk, your argument makes it sound as though just because it might be possible some anchor-baby gamer girl might be, maybe, treated unfairly that we should do nothing to correct a situation that’s gotten out of control. Again. I might not have a specific solution in mind, but am fairly comfortable with the idea it’s time to have another serious discussion about the problem with the goal of fixing it once and for all.
Or would you prefer open borders?
Birth citizenship has nothing to do with “open borders” , speaking of horsefeathers.
That was beneath you.
The -kid- born here did nothing wrong, no more or less than me or you.
There are folks who are advocating disenfranchising anyone not descended from -only- declaration signatories. That is where “no you aint, because daddy ain’t” goes.
If your grandad was born of illegals, his kid aint legal, so the grandkid ain’t legal.
I see no reason to feed such monstrous wrong-headedness.
Limit getting here, sure. End the dang welfare state that attracts parasites. End the “family reunification” exemptions that create the “chain” issue. Those go -far- more to addressing immigration issues than arguing over “bloodlines”.
We do not currently create the 2.2 kids needed to maintain population. Absent some immigration, we are -done-.
I want to cherry pick the best and brightest and most liberty-minded folks, and meld them into -our- team, thus stealing them away from rivals, impoverishment – them-.
I want to make it tough to get here, so we get tough people. It is -impossible- to stop them. The Iron Curtain leaked like a sieve, and they had a “wall” we can never duplicate.
As long as we all live like kings, the world will come here, because the difference is so awesomely -huge-
What I decline to do, is disenfranchise Americans, based on trusting some political process to not corrupt into yet another rigged scheme.
One that -will- be weaponized. Look at the current mess and tell me it won’t.
I’ve seen some pretty convincing arguments that the “subject to the jurisdiction of” part of the amendment was understood as allegiance to another government. Meaning, if you’re a citizen of another country and not legally pursuing citizenship here, your allegiance is to that government.
Nor have I seen anything that says this would be retroactive so “de-personing” is a non-issue at this point.
Lighten up, Francis. You’re jumping the gun in the wrong direction.
So, just because we have foolishly taken in hundreds of thousands of babies who happened to be born here to parents who burn our flag but proudly carry their own, and then welcomed many more hundreds of thousands of their kin we should continue the practice until they have literally bankrupted this country?
The first rule used to be to stop the bleeding. We need desperately to stop the bleeding along our borders. And the chain migrations it spawns.
We need some sanity, folks.
It says what it says. If Trump wants to change the Constitution he needs to get the ball rolling on a convention. I might get behind some changes to the 14th but an EO to interfere with the direct wording of constitutional law sounds a lot like that last guy. He will lose straight up if he goes to the SCOTUS unless he raises Roger Taney from the dead and appoints him Chief Justice.
Bingo.
Nothing less than an amendment will stick.
The re-fight every few years is worse than the problem itself.
Political stunt to please his base and troll the left. One of the most unconstitutional notions he has mentioned so far.. He knows it is unconstitutional or at least he should know. But his willingness to do it anyway pleases much of his base.
He is throwing out nonsense in hopes it increases enthusiasm as nd turnout for republicans.
Similar to the 10% tax cut he claimed he was giving the middle class “before the election”. He spewed that lie last week despite that fact congress is not in session and there is literally no bill under consideration to do that in either house before the election.
Hey, squid for brains, try to learn the difference between and Executive Order and a bill to cur or raise taxes.
Just remember, yo’ boy bodaprez had a phone and a pen and used them to make a tax out of Obamacare, when it is in fact, nothing of the sort.
Cunthulu: No, you’re completely wrong again but, you know, I’m tired of your ignorant statements and it’s not my job to educate you. You assert as fact that which is opinion and you have never evidenced any facility for clear thought. I will say this though: do reconsider continued use of CNN, MSNBC, and Democratic Underground as your information sources.
You ignorant bastard.
Lemme explains this reel slow like, it’s not ok for the President’s hotel business to get monies from a foreign government but it is ok for an illegal immigrant to benefit via chain migration for sh*tting out a kid in the U.S of A.
Do you even Constitution bro? Btws, totally written on hemp… (or lamb skin, let’s not let facts get in the way of pragmatism)
Looks like you been smoking that plant related to hemp, but has much more THC. Would you like to inform us as to what foreign government is supporting the Trump hotels. And no, don’t tell us that it is because some foreign national once stayed at a Trump hotel.
That was pure, 100%, unadulterated American bootlegged sarcasm of the corn mashed variety.
I hemped once, it was awful.
Ok, re-read your post and see your point. Should have hung a “sarc” tag on it for the dense among us, or maybe just me.
I once humped a girl wearing a hemp skirt.
She was smoking hot!
“Do you even Constitution bro?”
Applause. I’m taking that.
Brilliant! He’s throwing out the “executive order to revoke citizenship of anchor babies”, and it’s about a week until election day!
Not only will it stir up the loud, noisy detergent podeaters, howling with angst over the mere thought of such a horror that someone could use a phone and a pen to invoke a new law, but it may also stir the stumps of any currently reluctant voters to get out in the rain and cold and vote, if they haven’t already.
The mere notion that an illegal alien’s offspring born here may not automatically become a US citizen as was anticipated will stir even more turmoil in the bowl and create even more howls of horror. Will they be looking at their parents and wondering?
What interesting times we are living in.
When writing the 14th Amendment the dastardly Yankee douchebags could have known about jet airplanes bringing pregnant womens here, especially with a health care system law that mandates we’s pays for ‘em, coz, you know, it IS Affordable AF.
Kinda like the Founding Fathers couldn’t know metallurgy, CAD, and modern chemistry would lead to AR-47s and AK-15s.
But what do i’s know? I wash myself with a rag on a stick.
If folks had just picked their own cotton….
Word ^^^!
I thought we didn’t like Executive Orders that circumvent the legislative process?
I don’t. You don’t. Others don’t. Some do, especially if it is tit for tat.
(Yeah, I know, 26 Limabeans, I said tit.)
Don’t like them either, but what I DO like is a master negotiator using every tool at his disposal to do great things for this country.
Please note: he has not actually used the EO for this purpose, only thrown the possibility out there for everyone to ponder. How many times has he done the same thing? Throw something out there, and after he gets everyone’s attention tells us how it’s really going to be or move on to the next negotiating position. Brilliant. (And it might explain why he is worth what he is while the rest of us are not.)