fullspinzoo

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/donald_j_bush_puts_pen_to_rotten_paper.html Donald J. Trump is entitled to one "screw-up" per year, and he just got his.

pafret Loc: Northeast

This is not a screwup, it is a betrayal of the promises he made which induced most of us to v**e for him. Defunding Planned Parenthood, funding and building the border wall, and balancing the budget. While the last item was never going to happen, to acquiesce without a fight simply doesn't cut the mustard. Trump's tweet about possibly vetoing the bill was pandering to his base, there was never a possibility he would veto. The Republicans, in congress, gave the Democrats everything they wanted and in the process, shot themselves in the foot. If they are not going to exercise fiscal responsibility I might as well v**e for a Democrat an get in on the gimme programs.

DACA and i*********n l*w changes, should not be par of a funding appropriation law, except to provide funding, if needed to effect wh**ever decisions Congress has made concerning those issues. The entire funding process smacks of secret conspiracy and backroom deals. Since the process is not defined in the Constitution and is an internal rule matter, changes can be mage by simple agreement, of Congress, to change their process.

There is absolutely no reason a permanent committee can not work on funding appropriations 100 percent of the time. Their proposed funding can be put on an internal network and each Congress person plus the President and Vice President, could review and rate each proposal as it is listed. They would check off one of three options:

Approved as is
Disapproved as is
Rejected needs revision.

When the date of the funding v**e arrives only those elements which are approved by the majority should be included.

The House could then exercise its prerogative to add items or remove them, with the proviso that changes must be completed one calendar month before funding approval deadline and posted on the internal network for review by the Senate. The Senates revisions would have to be completed no later than one week before deadline. At deadline only approved items should be included and any disputes are relegated to future funding bills. There is no imperative that funding be done all at one time.

This would have the effect of forcing Congress to exercise an internal line item veto. Political pressure, favors and party affiliations will continue to be a problem, but not being Solomon, I have no ideas on how to stop that.

fullspinzoo

I hope he understands how many people he has disappointed. This is in complete contrast to why the American e*****rate v**ed for him, and he can't see that? I mean, I still to this day believe he will balance the budget, but it doesn't look promising. Took the wind right out my sail. For months, I've been going "DID THIS: ~ check mrk; DID THIS ~ check mark. He received high grades....until now. Well, I'm going to let him slide on this one...and it's a big one. I h**e to say it but "Trump got PLAYED!

pafret Loc: Northeast

The only redemption for Trump at this point is if he fights for and gets an end to birthright citizenship for children of i******s, chain immigration and lottery immigration. These things must come first, before any resolution of DACA status. We do not want to reward criminals with paths to citizenship or permanent resident status just because they brought minors with them when they entered and stayed illegally. If I brought my young, minor son, along on burglaries you wouldn't prosecute him but you certainly wouldn't let me go scot-free. Why are i*****l a***ns any different?

Trump has shown that his deal making is so much gas, he got nothing except what would have had to happen anyway, the restoration of Military funding which Obama shut off with his sequester. I expected him to be a lot tougher negotiator then he showed himself to be. At the very least he should not have signed a blank check. If no one read this thing then why enact it into law? Did we learn nothing with the Obamacare railroading? There is funding in there for other counties to build walls, but not one dime for our wall.

Rand Paul was on TV and said he had been reading for about ten or twelve hours and only got to page 600 of the bill before it was time to v**e. How many others made that effort? The great delegator could have divided that bill up into fifty page segments and put as many people as was needed to read and f**g any crapola so that he (Trump) could assess the worth of what he was getting as opposed to the screwing the public would take.

boatbob2

No matter what Donald wants to do,the RINOS,LIBS,and DEMONCRATS,are going to fight him at every turn,,,,,,,,,,He just cant catch a break.-

Loki Loc: Georgia

There IS no "birthright citizenship" for the children of i******s. The SCOTUS has ruled on this matter twice; once in Elk v Wilkins 1884, and once in US v Wong Kim Ark 1898. In the first, John Elk was ruled not a citizen because while he was born on US soil, he was the child of non-citizen parents, therefore had no claim to birthright citizenship. In the second, Wong Kim Ark was ruled a birthright citizen, because while his parents were not citizens, they WERE permanent legal residents.

pafret Loc: Northeast

You are correct, there was an attempt to make a law governing birthright cicizenship in 2017

Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017 introduced by Rep Steve King as H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2017

"This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

This Act shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of its enactment."

Even this law does not make children of i******s born here citizens. But, it does not require identification of status of the parent on the birth certificate. The problem is compounded because the citizenship status of the parents is not defined on a birth certificate and having a valid birth certificate is assumed to be proof of citizenship. Hence the term "anchor babies". All of this loosey goosey treatment combines to give birthright citizenship to anyone born on our soil despite the Supreme Court Rulings.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.expressly forbids such citizenship to any children, whose parents are subjects of a foreign sovereignty and i******s fit that category exactly. Like everything about i*********n l*w this preept is nullified or confused with whether or not the alien parents were in this country, with government permission, such as the Canadian mothers who have their children in American hospitals and thereby have dual citizenship conferred.

The arguments both ways can go in forever but the reality is that any baby born on US soil is treated as an American Citizen and we have no mechanism to disprove such citizenship claims.