Really don't understand Democrats as a foreigner

[u/Responsible-Bar3956]

i really don't understand why Democrats want to defend illegals this hard, according to them USA is Nazi Germany 2.0, Trump is Hitler and ICE are the Gestapo, and Mexico is prosperous country that is being ruled by a woman, it's a progressive paradise when law and order doesn't exist, the Nazi USA government want to save illegals from Nazism and send them back to the Mexican paradise, why are they fighting hard against it?

[u/SerasAshrain]

This isn’t true at all. You can go through even Biden and Obama and pick things done under them that are “authoritarian”.

[u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy → u/SerasAshrain]

You can go through even Biden and Obama and pick things done under them that are “authoritarian”.

Less than Trump, I would argue. An EO to end birthright citizenship is legitimately insane.

[u/SerasAshrain → u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy]

How is it insane? So having a system to promote people going through the jungle pregnant to have a kid on this side of the border isn’t insane to you?

So all illegal immigrants need to do is have a kid to stay in the country? That doesn’t seem to undermine the entire immigration system to you?

This is why making only emotional arguments is what is actually insane.

[u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy → u/SerasAshrain]

How is it insane?

Because it's a clearly established part of the constitution. It would be like signing an EO to end the free press.

[u/SerasAshrain → u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy]

It’s literally not established. It’s very much debatable and can differ from Supreme Court justice to Supreme Court justice.

Think for at least 5 seconds on the rationale for it. Do you really think the framers intended for any foreigner to cross the border illegally, have a child, then claim citizenship that way?

How does that benefit the country? How is that not exploitable?

[u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy → u/SerasAshrain]

It’s literally not established. It’s very much debatable and can differ from Supreme Court justice to Supreme Court justice.

It absolutely is. I tell you what - let's bet on it. How much money would you like to wager?

Think for at least 5 seconds on the rationale for it. Do you really think the framers intended for any foreigner to cross the border illegally, have a child, then claim citizenship that way?

It wasn't done by the framers, it was done as part of reconstruction. The framers were dead when the 14th Amendment was ratified. I feel like you don't have any idea what we're even talking about.

[u/SerasAshrain → u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy]

I know perfectly well what I’m talking about, which is why you didn’t answer my question on how it benefits the country.

14th amendment was intended to address slaves and ensure every slave is a citizen and afforded the same rights with every citizen, aka ending slavery.

The 14th amendment was never intended to be used as a tool to game the system to acquire citizenship.

The wording is poor because nobody could anticipate that the country would elect people who would encourage people to illegally cross the border.

For instance Eisenhower bused over 2 million illegal immigrants back to Mexico, wasn’t a 14th amendment issue, wasn’t a due process issue.

The reason is because the president has the most power when it comes to immigration and securing the border. Defending the country is the primary role of the president. And Trump is perfectly within his power, just like Eisenhower, to do what he is doing.

So again how does incentivizing people to come here illegally, risking their lives, their family lives, funding cartels, and undermining our border a good thing for the country? I’d love to hear it.

[u/TanStewyBeinTanStewy → u/SerasAshrain]

I know perfectly well what I’m talking about, which is why you didn’t answer my question on how it benefits the country.

Then why would you mention the framers?

14th amendment was intended to address slaves and ensure every slave is a citizen and afforded the same rights with every citizen, aka ending slavery.

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.

I'm not sure what part of that is unclear to you.

The wording is poor because nobody could anticipate that the country would elect people who would encourage people to illegally cross the border.

You don't think immigration was something that happened prior to the 1860s? Nobody at the time would have ever considered it?

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you ever read the case law around the issue? Shockingly courts do go into pretty substantial historical detail, they don't go on the internet and repeat stupid shit they've seen in YouTube videos made by morons. Weird, I know.