quote:

Companies are overwhelmed with environment laws and diversity hire crap. Need to fix this stuff first.

That's in the process.

quote:

If only it was that easy, we no longer have a skilled workforce. The ones we have want unions and more pay. Income tax and health care is too high. Companies are overwhelmed with environment laws and diversity hire crap. Need to fix this stuff first.

Much of this is not necessarily skilled labor. Many manufacturing jobs can be done with on the job training. I believe the income tax is going to get overhauled. I think a flat consumption tax is being floated already. Trump has already begun deregulating. Nothing you mentioned can't be fixed and the speed at which Trump is operating it won't take long.

Welfare offices need to be turned into employment offices. Women on welfare who get knocked up do not get additional monies to support that child. Around here it is a cottage business with the gang bangers knocking up their girlfriends to get the welfare increase. Those kids never stand a chance, baby daddy just views them as an income increase. Baby momma can't handle the stress of four babies crying and screaming with another one coming and no sign of baby daddy. Kids get neglected and abused. Disgusting cycle that needs to stop! That always took me to another level of pissed off!

Well it didn't take long to draft up legal actions on the Birthright issue, which I think was Trumps point, lets get it in the courts and take it to SCOTUS, in the meantime some R have drafted legislation ending birthright.

Going to be an interesting fight..


Judge to hear 4 states bid to block Birthright Citizenship

Link

US judge to hear bid to block Trump birthright citizenship order

By Daniel Catchpole and Nate Raymond January 23, 202511:24 AM EST
Updated 2 hours ago

SEATTLE, Jan 23 (Reuters) - Four Democratic-led states will urge a federal judge in Seattle on Thursday to block President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his executive order curtailing the right to automatic birthright citizenship in the United States.

The executive order issued by the Republican president on his first day on office on Monday has already become the subject of five lawsuits by civil rights groups and Democratic attorneys general from 22 states, who call it a flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle is set to hear arguments on a request by Democratic state attorneys general from Washington state, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon for a temporary restraining order to prevent the administration from carrying out this key element of Trump's immigration crackdown.

The challengers have argued that Trump's action violates the right enshrined in the citizenship clause of the Constitution's 14th Amendment that provides that anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

Trump in his executive order directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither their mother nor father is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

In a brief filed late on Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department called the order an "integral part" of the president's efforts "to address this nation's broken immigration system and the ongoing crisis at the southern border."

The lawsuit filed in Seattle has been progressing more quickly than the four other cases brought over the executive order. It has been assigned to Coughenour, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan.

The judge potentially could rule from the bench after hearing arguments, or he could wait to write a decision ahead of Trump's order taking effect.
Under the order, any children born after Feb. 19 whose mothers or fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents would be subject to deportation and would be prevented from obtaining Social Security numbers, various government benefits and the ability as they get older to work lawfully.

More than 150,000 newborn children would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order is allowed to stand, according to the Democratic-led states.

Democratic state attorneys general have said that the understanding of the Constitution's citizenship clause was cemented 127 years ago when the U.S.
Supreme Court held that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship.

The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 following the Civil War and overturned the Supreme Court's notorious 1857 Dred Scott decision that had declared that the Constitution's protections did not apply to enslaved Black people.

But the Justice Department in its brief argued that the 14th Amendment had never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born in the country, and that the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark concerned only children of permanent residents.

The Justice Department said the case by the four states also "flunks multiple threshold hurdles." The department said that only individuals, not states, can pursue claims under the citizenship clause, and that the states lack the necessary legal standing to sue over Trump's order.

Thirty-six of Trump's Republican allies in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday separately introduced legislation to restrict automatic citizenship to only children born to citizens or lawful permanent residents.

ICE has been freed to make arrests at churches. More immigrants took sanctuary in Philadelphia than anywhere else.


The president's reversal on 'sensitive locations' frees agents to act not just at churches but at schools, hospitals, colleges, funerals, and rallies


ICE has been freed to make arrests at churches. More immigrants took sanctuary in Philadelphia than anywhere else.


The president's reversal on 'sensitive locations' frees agents to act not just at churches but at schools, hospitals, colleges, funerals, and rallies

More than a dozen migrants took sanctuary inside Philadelphia churches during President Donald Trump’s first administration, the most of any city in the country, blocking their deportations by putting themselves beyond the reach of ICE agents.
Agency policy deemed houses of worship off limits, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Now that protection is gone. A Trump administration directive issued Monday eliminated the restraints that kept federal agents from entering churches, schools, and hospitals in what the federal Department of Homeland Security said was a move to keep American citizens safe.

On Wednesday, Philadelphia activists who helped shelter undocumented immigrants in churches in Germantown, University City, and North Philadelphia pledged fresh resistance, pointing out that a knock on the door does not automatically require an answer.

“It feels like emotional warfare, that this is really the aim, an attempt to take away every last safe space,” said Peter Pedemonti, codirector of New Sanctuary Movement of Philadelphia, whose members include 33 churches in the region.

“Congregations are not just safe spaces, those are sacred spaces. This feels like a desecration.”
New Sanctuary Movement has been alerting church leaders that the change in policy does not mean ICE can enter at will, Pedemonti said, and clergy should ask to see legal judicial warrants if agents appear. Churches should have response protocols in place and train staff on how to respond if U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents arrive, he said.
Philadelphia ICE officials did not immediately reply to a request for comment Wednesday.

Hours after Trump’s Monday inauguration, homeland security officials directed that federal enforcement agents will be allowed to take action at places where they were previously barred, including colleges, funerals, rallies, and shelters, eliminating the church refuge that Philadelphia immigration advocates saw as a last-ditch but lifesaving tactic.

“Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” the Department of Homeland Security, which governs ICE, said in a statement. “The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

The revocation also applies to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, whose mission is to safeguard the borders and enhance economic prosperity.
“It says there is no place where people can be safe,” said the Rev. Renee McKenzie, who less than a year into Trump’s first term made the decision to welcome a frightened, undocumented family of five into the Church of the Advocate in North Philadelphia. “I’ve been anticipating this, based upon things were said and knowing how this administration feels about immigrants.”

McKenzie, now serving at Calvary St. Augustine Episcopal Church in the Belmont neighborhood of West Philadelphia, said she worries that some churches might think twice about helping undocumented immigrants, knowing they could be targeted.

Is Philadelphia prepared for federal immigration enforcement?

The directive threw the Philadelphia School District’s “sanctuary schools” policy into question on Wednesday, even as City Councilmember Rue Landau convened a “Trump Preparedness” hearing to confront what could be four difficult years for a big, Democratic-led city.

The City Hall hearing underlined criticism of Mayor Cherelle L. Parker for not forcefully endorsing Philadelphia’s status as a sanctuary city — a place that deliberately limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
City Solicitor Renee Garcia said the city’s sanctuary safeguards remain in place, but stopped short of confirming whether Parker was considering additional steps as she and her staff reviewed Trump’s first-day slew of executive orders on immigration.

The city faces an additional challenge at a time of federal scrutiny: Hours after the Trump administration directed U.S. prosecutors to investigate local officials who do not cooperate with its plans for mass deportations, Parker announced that the director of the Office of Immigrant Affairs, Amy Eusebio, will leave her job on Friday. The city will undertake a national search for a successor, the mayor said.

The Defender Association of Philadelphia, which provides counsel to people who cannot afford to hire private attorneys, said at the hearing that it intends to create an “immigrant defense unit” to assist those at risk of deportation, according to Chief Defender Keisha Hudson. The association will seek an additional $800,000 from the city for that, she said.

How churches became the backdrop to a national debate over immigration
About 47,000 undocumented people live in Philadelphia, their lack of legal status placing them at risk of deportation. They are among 153,000 *00,000statewide, with an additional 440,000 900,000 in New Jersey.

And many Americans want them — among 13 million in the country illegally — to be deported. A new poll by Ipsos and the New York Times shows that 63% support removing immigrants who entered the country without permission during the last four years, and 55% said they support deporting all immigrants who are undocumented.
No one is currently in church sanctuary in Philadelphia, according to activists.
During Trump’s first term, sanctuary provided a dramatic backdrop for the furious national debate over immigration, as families and church leaders across the country pitted themselves against the power of the federal government.
From 2016 to 2018, as ICE increased enforcement actions, the number of immigrants in sanctuary jumped from five to 42, and the churches, synagogues, and mosques that were ready to offer housing nearly tripled to 1,110.
Philadelphia was ground zero. Most cities had no one in church sanctuary, others maybe one or two, Philadelphia had 14 at one point.
Only the most desperate families took sanctuary here, mostly mothers and children who believed they could be killed if sent back to their homelands.
Some stayed inside for years, supported in daily living by a network of clergy and groups like New Sanctuary Movement. All those in sanctuary eventually emerged safely after finding legal routes to stay in the United States.
Church sanctuary is arduous for all involved, but its protection, partly afforded by the sensitive-locations policy, gave families a crucial advantage in their fights to remain in the country: time. The years in sanctuary allowed space for new legal strategies to develop, for court cases to go forward, for presidential administrations to change.

The ICE sensitive-locations policy goes back years: It was created under President Barack Obama, remained in place during the first Trump administration, and then was strengthened under President Joe Biden. He specifically directed agents to focus on migrants who posed risks to national security, border security, or public safety.

All versions of the policy dissuaded agents from taking action at churches and other locations except in extraordinary cases.

Immigration advocates in Philadelphia said ICE sometimes violated its own rules, taking action at places that were supposed to be sacrosanct.

In 2020, agents detained a woman after she dropped off her child at Eliza B. Kirkbride Elementary School in South Philadelphia. School district officials said the woman was approached near Seventh and Dickinson Streets but did not know if she was on school property.

The same year, ICE took a Honduran man into custody at a Scranton hospital, then placed him in detention at the Pike County Correctional Facility. Pennsylvania lawyer Juliette Gomez said her client’s arrest clearly violated the sensitive-locations policy. ICE said the arrest began at the federal courthouse, and what followed was a continuation of that process.

In 2019, an ICE agent appeared in Courtroom 906 at the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Center, flashing a badge and looking for a particular defendant. The incident led the city sheriff to demand that agents identify themselves to deputies if they are on duty inside a city courtroom.

“We pushed back before the sensitive-locations memo, and we’ll push back now,” Pedemonti said Wednesday. “The Trump administration doesn’t dictate what congregations do. God does.”

https://www.inquirer.com/news/...ations-20250122.html

quote:

The Justice Department said the case by the four states also "flunks multiple threshold hurdles." The department said that only individuals, not states, can pursue claims under the citizenship clause, and that the states lack the necessary legal standing to sue over Trump's order.

It would be absolutely hilarious if their (D's) case got tossed on standing.

The nation is healing before our eyes

https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1882464105153601659

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

The Justice Department said the case by the four states also "flunks multiple threshold hurdles." The department said that only individuals, not states, can pursue claims under the citizenship clause, and that the states lack the necessary legal standing to sue over Trump's order.

It would be absolutely hilarious if their (D's) case got tossed on standing.

Fox News: Judge rules the order blatantly unconstitutional, on live TV

the States aren't in charge of citizenship, so they can go pound sand

Fox reports Murkowski is voting against Hegseth..

Not surprising, how the hell R keep her in office is beyond reason....

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
A local FB page for my area had numerous reports of lots of military helicopters flying low and west yesterday which we don't see too often. I wonder if they were going to a staging area possibility Fort Indiantown Gap in the middle of PA for deployment to the border?

One of my sons left this am for a combat leadership course there. Im going to check with him in a few days and see if he knows anything

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Well it didn't take long to draft up legal actions on the Birthright issue, which I think was Trumps point, lets get it in the courts and take it to SCOTUS, in the meantime some R have drafted legislation ending birthright.

Going to be an interesting fight..
....

I predict President Trump's action to end "birthright citizenship" will fail, simply because the 14th Amendment states:

quote:

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.

So, the children are American citizens and should be treated as such. The parents, however, if in the US in violation of our immigration laws should be immediately deported and the child placed in the .gov run child abuse system, placed for private adoption by the parents before being deported, or taken with the parents when the parents get deported. The child is always welcome in our Nation; the immigration law breaking parents should be refused reentry permanently.

That President Trump can accomplish with a stroke of the pen, and best of all, there isn't a goddamned thing that can be done to challenge it. What are they going to argue? That the option of giving the child to the .gov run child abuse system is abusive?

There’s already clear grounds that the children of diplomats and invading armies aren’t included.

Why not individuals illegally in the country? It is an exact parallel.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Fox reports Murkowski is voting against Hegseth..

Might be time for a recess ...

There’s going to be a “deep dive” into the History books now. Researching exactly what was said in the post-Civil War Congress debates as to what was meant, past obscure 19th Century court cases, and some uncomfortable societal history. Be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it.

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
There’s going to be a “deep dive” into the History books now. Researching exactly what was said <snip>

I agree, particularly with respect to whether the jurisdictional issue might be used for allowing the executive order to stand. However, I suspect that President Trump and his advisors suspected or even expected that the order would be overturned initially but also knew that might serve as a rallying cry to force legislative action (if the courts say Congress has the power to further define jurisdiction) or even a Constitutional amendment if they can't. It's about getting the ball started and keeping it rolling at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
There’s already clear grounds that the children of diplomats and invading armies aren’t included.

Why not individuals illegally in the country? It is an exact parallel.

It will be a legal battle that will have to be decided by the Supreme Court.
But it's a fight worth having...

Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real

Donald Trump yesterday issued a new executive order declaring that so-called “birthright citizenship” does not apply to the children of foreign nationals residing illegally within the United States. The order reads, in part:

(a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

There is a common misconception in the United States that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution mandates that the US government grant citizenship to anyone and everyone born within the borders of the United States. This misconception is largely due to the fact that, for several decades, US courts and technocrats have conspired to redefine the original meaning of the amendment, and thus apply it to every child of every tourist and foreign national who happens to be born on this side of the US border.

Some have even attempted to define access to birthright citizenship as some sort of natural right. This is a common tactic among some libertarians who have twisted the idea of property rights to extend the idea of a “right” to the governmental administrative act known as “naturalization.”

Even when looking at the issue strictly in terms of procedural legal rights, however, it is clear that the current definition of birthright citizenship is in conflict with the law as originally intended and interpreted.

To understand the central point of contention, let’s note the text of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, which states that citizenship shall be extended to: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Note that there are two qualifying phrases here. The persons in question must be both born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It is this second qualification that remains a matter of debate.

What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This issue is explained by legal scholar Hans Spakovsky who notes that advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States

erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

The courts themselves have historically recognized this distinction, noting that the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves who obviously were not connected to any other country or sovereign. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), the court ruled:

That [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

That second sentence is key: ”The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation ... citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was further confirmed by the Court in 1884 (in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) when the Court stated that the idea of birthright citizenship did not apply to Native American tribes which were nonetheless within the borders of the United States:

“[The Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”

In short, the court recognized that the tribal lands were within the legal jurisdiction of the United States, but this did not mean that everyone born within those borders was automatically granted citizenship. Those tribal members believed to be subjects of “foreign” tribal governments were therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a way that conferred automatic citizenship.

Congress further reinforced the court’s interpretation by adopting new legislation granting citizenship to all tribal members in 1924. Had the Fourteenth Amendment really granted automatic citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United States, no such legislation would have been necessary.

In the year 2024, however, advocates of the new and novel interpretation of “birthright citizenship” insist that the child of foreign nationals automatically becomes a citizen of the United States based entirely on the location of birth.

This is a rather odd way of doing things. In historical practice nearly everywhere, citizenship depends largely on the citizenship of parents, or on the parents’ place of birth, and not on the place where parents happen to temporarily reside when the child is born. Thus, historically and globally, the child of foreign nationals is himself a foreign national. This is true, for instance, of children born to American nationals overseas.

Only in the United States does there appear to be widespread confusion about this.

Of course, some libertarian or “classical liberal” readers might argue that such legal precedents are meaningless, and that everyone “deserves” the legal “right” of citizenship. How citizenship is any sort of natural right or property right, however, remains a mystery. Has the child somehow “homesteaded” his citizenship? Obviously not. Has the child entered into a contract with a legitimate property owner to acquire the “property” of citizenship? To ask these questions is to see the absurdity of them.

On the other hand, it is important to note that a lack of citizenship in any particular place does not negate anyone’s property rights. Real property rights—what Rothbard called “universal rights”—exist regardless of one’s citizenship, where he lives, or where he happens to have been born.

Read more: https://mises.org/power-market...itizenship-isnt-real

quote:

Originally posted by WaterburyBob:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Fox reports Murkowski is voting against Hegseth..

Might be time for a recess ...

Fox News reports Hegseth already cleared Senate cloture to advance to final floor vote. Bitch is irrelevant.

https://www.breitbart.com/clip...defy-trump-dei-order

Dick Durbin encourages federal workers to fight Trump’s removal of DEI. Good luck with that. Dick.

It is official- John Ratcliff confirmed as the next CIA Director.

https://www.foxnews.com/politi...ngressional-approval

quote:

Originally posted by reloader-1:
There’s already clear grounds that the children of diplomats and invading armies aren’t included.

Why not individuals illegally in the country? It is an exact parallel.

Spot on. "And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means complete federal jurisdiction. Can the federal government compel an illegal alien to serve on jury duty? No. Can the federal government compel an illegal alien to register for the draft? No.

Why did it take an act of Congress to make American Indians US citizens? Because they were considered to be citizens of another nation - their tribe, even though they were in the confines of the US. They were not subject to "complete" jurisdiction.

Ultimately, if the USSC decides that anchor babies are citizens, fine, they can stay, but your illegal alien parents have to leave. Take them with you, or don't.