Some Children born out of country to US troops and Americans no longer automatic US citizens

[steross]

No it’s really not, I might disagree with a law I might consider the law or regulation as overreach but if they enforce a law on the books that’s what they’re supposed to do.
To combat that we have to elect officials who will remove bad laws and gvt overreach from the books, iow, don’t like the law work to change it.

Adding laws to create more enforcement to an existing law (gun control aae) is different.

full disclosure, I support the memorializing of this rule

Of course it is. If this exact change had occurred during Obama's term and the headlines were instead "The Obama administration is disallowing automatic citizenship for some military children born overseas" would the responses in this thread have been the same? Trump is being defended, not the federal government. We both know that.
.........
It has been policy for many years to exclude this law from military/gov service. Instead of screwing a few servicemen over, they could have continued the policy that was not causing harm and got a servicemember friendly congressman to sponsor an change.

There are thousands of federal laws that are not enforced to the letter. Look at cannabis. Federally illegal yet a multi-billion dollar legal industry. When Sessions was going to "enforce the law" on that he was hogtied. But, this one only harms a few servicemen so lets get noble and enforce the laws.

 

[wrenhal]

This doesn't add bureaucracy, it eliminates needless waste because the 2 departments were treating things differently. By aligning their system it should be better.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

People that were previously automatically citizens now have to fill out paperwork and turn it in to attempt to obtain citizenship and you do not think that is bureaucracy? LOL. That is like a textbook definition of bureaucracy.

If they wanted to streamline 2 departments (why are there two departments doing this?) then they could have had both allow the children of citizen servicemen be citizens instead of choosing the extra paperwork way.

If this was the Obama administration, I would be saying the exact same thing. The only difference is you would be agreeing with me.

No,. The procedures already had to be followed, this is, to me, an attempt to make one department redundant and available for dissolution. I'm thinking more long term. State department is the more important of the 2 in regards to this type of procedure and is where most requests were probably filled through embassies, etc... to begin with.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[LS1 Z28]

This seems kind of odd. It won't affect very many people. It sort of feels like a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Maybe Trump feels like this gets him one step closer to ending birthright citizenship.

 

[wrenhal]

No it’s really not, I might disagree with a law I might consider the law or regulation as overreach but if they enforce a law on the books that’s what they’re supposed to do.
To combat that we have to elect officials who will remove bad laws and gvt overreach from the books, iow, don’t like the law work to change it.

Adding laws to create more enforcement to an existing law (gun control aae) is different.

full disclosure, I support the memorializing of this rule

Of course it is. If this exact change had occurred during Obama's term and the headlines were instead "The Obama administration is disallowing automatic citizenship for some military children born overseas" would the responses in this thread have been the same? Trump is being defended, not the federal government. We both know that.
.........
It has been policy for many years to exclude this law from military/gov service. Instead of screwing a few servicemen over, they could have continued the policy that was not causing harm and got a servicemember friendly congressman to sponsor an change.

There are thousands of federal laws that are not enforced to the letter. Look at cannabis. Federally illegal yet a multi-billion dollar legal industry. When Sessions was going to "enforce the law" on that he was hogtied. But, this one only harms a few servicemen so lets get noble and enforce the laws.

With Obama, I would have read that this was not denial of citizenship, read that it was just enforcing the filling out of paperwork, and went, oh well.
For somebody that says they are well read, you jumped the shark on this one and are trying to use a bunch of what ifs to get out of it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[ksupoke]

Of course it is. If this exact change had occurred during Obama's term and the headlines were instead "The Obama administration is disallowing automatic citizenship for some military children born overseas" would the responses in this thread have been the same? Trump is being defended, not the federal government. We both know that.
.........
It has been policy for many years to exclude this law from military/gov service. Instead of screwing a few servicemen over, they could have continued the policy that was not causing harm and got a servicemember friendly congressman to sponsor an change.

There are thousands of federal laws that are not enforced to the letter. Look at cannabis. Federally illegal yet a multi-billion dollar legal industry. When Sessions was going to "enforce the law" on that he was hogtied. But, this one only harms a few servicemen so lets get noble and enforce the laws.

If this administration, or any ftm, were modifying a rule/law/regulation/policy to increase its oversight your point would be valid, regardless of who it was.
This is simply restating an existing rlrp and memorializing so there’s no confusion when it’s enforced.

It’s no different than Gorsuch saying to Congress that we are going to uphold the Constitutionality of the law, we are not going to determine if it’s a good law, that’s your job.

aae the Patriot act is a bad law but I’m damned sure not going to violate it, I am going to vote for people who I think are ideologically similar and thus likely to work to overturn it or limit its scope.
If an admin uses it to further violate my individual rights (not privileges but rights) then, depending on other factors of course, I’m probably not voting for that candidate I can’t say I won’t because I’m not a single issue voter but it’s going to give me pause.

 

[steross]

With Obama, I would have read that this was not denial of citizenship, read that it was just enforcing the filling out of paperwork, and went, oh well.
For somebody that says they are well read, you jumped the shark on this one and are trying to use a bunch of what ifs to get out of it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Of course you would have.....

.... and, no, it is not just enforcing paperwork. Being well read I know that isn’t the case.

 

[LS1 Z28]

With Obama, I would have read that this was not denial of citizenship, read that it was just enforcing the filling out of paperwork, and went, oh well.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Remember when the media called Obama a racist for enforcing our immigration laws, and compared him to Hitler for separating families at the border? Yeah... I don't either.

The media loved Obama, and they protected him. They hate Trump, and they look for any possible angle to take a shot at him. I'm sure they would've reported this under Obama, but they would've smoothed it over a lot more.

 

[wrenhal]

With Obama, I would have read that this was not denial of citizenship, read that it was just enforcing the filling out of paperwork, and went, oh well.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Remember when the media called Obama a racist for enforcing our immigration laws, and compared him to Hitler for separating families at the border? Yeah... I don't either.

The media loved Obama, and they protected him. They hate Trump, and they look for any possible angle to take a shot at him. I'm sure they would've reported this under Obama, but they would've smoothed it over a lot more.

I was totally for Obama on that thing too.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[wrenhal]

With Obama, I would have read that this was not denial of citizenship, read that it was just enforcing the filling out of paperwork, and went, oh well.
For somebody that says they are well read, you jumped the shark on this one and are trying to use a bunch of what ifs to get out of it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Of course you would have.....

.... and, no, it is not just enforcing paperwork. Being well read I know that isn’t the case.

Wow, you can read minds for intent now. Do you have a Vegas showroom booked for your act yet?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[steross]

Wow, you can read minds for intent now. Do you have a Vegas showroom booked for your act yet?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Maybe you can point out the posts that you have made that defended the Obama administration and the posts you have made that criticized the Trump administration to prove what I am saying wrong. It isn't mind reading, you are as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

 

[wrenhal]

Wow, you can read minds for intent now. Do you have a Vegas showroom booked for your act yet?

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Maybe you can point out the posts that you have made that defended the Obama administration and the posts you have made that criticized the Trump administration to prove what I am saying wrong. It isn't mind reading, you are as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

I don't post on every topic here and not every topic I agree or disagree with gets posted about here. I don't have to come up with anything. You are getting to be like townie with your assuming what you know about other people's thoughts and feelings

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

 

[NotOnTV]

I don't post on every topic here and not every topic I agree or disagree with gets posted about here. I don't have to come up with anything. You are getting to be like townie with your assuming what you know about other people's thoughts and feelings

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Shots fired! LOL!

 

[ksupoke]

I am about 99% certain that there’s at least 2 posters in this thread that haven’t bothered to read the actual policy or the clarification statement that was issued.