So from what I'm reading (which isn't much honestly) is that it depends how "subject to the jurisdiction of" is interpreted.

There isn't any contention over "natural born", since that just means born in the United States or to parents of citizens.

Currently according to "code of federal regulations" "subject to the jurisdiction of" means the following


(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;

(2) Any person actually within the United States;

(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and

(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.


Which would definitely include children of illegal immigrants.



So if he goes through with this it's not impossible it goes to the supreme court and it gets upheld, but until that happens the order will definitely get delayed as it would be on really sketchy legal ground.



So Obama didn't have an extraordinary amount, but Trump's 2017 number, while not unheard of, was really low.

Wow, Regan averaged 48 a year. Quite a bit more.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Oct 30 2018 10:46am

do you even know what an executive order is hack?

i said multiple times that it is an issue worth talking about, and that this move doesnt address it in any meaningful way.

Obama made changes to the NATO ammunitions (among multiple other EOs) and the right threw a fit, claiming he was skirting the constitution and legislative branch by "expanding executive power", implying it would ruin america. now trump tries to hackily shift immigration the same way and you see no issue and think he's adequately addressing the issue? jesus, take a walk and come back smarter because you seem to have your own case of trump derangement syndrome. he's putting a bandaid on a gaping wound and you're blind to it. i agree it's an issue, i'd just rather actual action instead of a political equivalent of a shitty dry lapdance.

i'm not triggered, i'm astounded at the ignorance coming from your posts. i can only explain it by assuming you're so happy to see "action" on an issue that you find important that you're blind to the ineffectual nature of the action itself. your no better than a ghetto mom that's happy to get under minimum wage in a welfare check, you'll take anything at this point. it's sad to see to be honest, time was in america we strove for good policy, now idiots take whatever tiny crumb they can get out of Washington. Crumbs mind you that can be unwritten in a single pen stroke with zero oversight from another branch of government.

now please be a good little boy and make the "legislation will follow from executive orders" argument, that's almost as dumb as your original statement lmao.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Oct 30 2018 10:46am

That doesn't tell the whole story. There's also presidential memorandums, which are almost functionality the same as executive orders.

So technically Obama has the least amount of executive orders per year since Grover Cleveland, but with memorandums, he's probably a lot higher. Can't find that data with a quick search but perhaps someone else can.

Classic Obama to make himself look better with less EO's on the surface. He was actively obsessed with his presidential legacy, which led to both good and bad decisions during his tenure.

Interesting to see how presidents reacted during times of crisis like World War's and the like.

To say executive orders are insignificant because they can be nullified by the other party is beyond dumb. Guess what? All laws whether they come from EO or congress given enough time can be changed and/or altered, so by that logic why bother with any law?

For example, DACA was an EO and it was significant. Was DACA dumb and insignificant in your opinion? I don't think I heard a single person argue that it's insignificant whether they were for or against it because it would be an absolutely retarded argument, just like how you and Icemage saying this move would be insignificant is dumb af.

If this passes it will be significant, even if 5 years from now Democrats change it back. In the short run, it would reduce illegal immigration to the US by tens of thousands at the very minimum.

Most recent data i found:



Let's say this EO is signed and Trump wins re-election. 6 years of * 198,000 births (that are granted citizenship solely based on being born here) =1.2 million people+ 2 parents for every one of those baby= 3.6 million people

So in 6 years, 3.6 million illegal immigrants can plausibly be deported from here. Even if the law is changed after 6 years, that's still an astronomical number that you've prevented from being here legally through the anchor baby loophole in 6 years.

I'm curious, what's your solution to this? Dysfunctional Congress that can't even agree on infrastructure even though they both ran on it, will somehow step in and solve immigration? At least Trump is trying to rock the boat somehow, instead of taking your approach "well this isn't a long-term fix" so I won't do anything.

I think there's a nuanced point to be made that Trump is not a federalistic society originalist like the judges he's nominated. He was never a constitutional purist like the subset of the republican party that controls judicial appointments. Trump has always been clearly a pragmatist, and I think if/when he loses the house in the midterms, we could just as easily see a transformation to King Trump ruling by executive orders much like Obama did.

Conceal carry works for me.

I gave my solution already. Spend less elsewhere to reduce immigration and focus on enforcement domestically. This type of legislation and the inevitable litigation is a drain that doesn't actually produce many results. Given just ur simple math u have to factor in stays due to lawsuits and red tape regionally undermining the eo. That's if it clears a scotus stay, which it may not. Its political sabre rattling on our dime.

You can't enforce immigration when illegals can abuse a loophole, which they obviously do otherwise the births to illegals wouldn't be so high, 11% is massive. Cross the border and have the baby in a Texas hospital, What now? The baby is a US citizen so you can't deport it and it's inhumane to separate it from the parents. The only option is you let all 3 stay. I know if I was an illegal i'd try to do that to ensure i'm safe from deportation.

You get more litigation issues from what we currently have then if you revoked the auto US citizenship based on birth here. The latter you can deport the family regardless without the quandary of how do you solve the citizen child-illegal parents.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 30 2018 03:37pm

Incorrect, that's not what it means legally. Foreign diplomats, native americans, and soldiers for example were not included, because they are under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation.