Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution

Fox News Insider ^ | August 17, 2015

[stephenjohnbanker]

Correct.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. that doesn’t mean we are stuck with this situation; it means we need a new law that says; child cannot be citizen of USA, unless parent is already a citizen.

[Twinkie]

Ha! Barry has already set the precedent of not allowing that steenkin’ Constitution to even slow him down!

[mrsmel]

Funny how the establishment's support of illegal immigration and blamket amnesty jibes perfectly with the CoC's desire for cheap labor. Also, along the same lines, that the only successful Republican policy in recent years has been union-busting, which also ties in wth that agenda. The only one that's been successful. I never had any use for unions, but it's just uncanny how the one policy which would be supportive of cheap labor, along with unfettered immigration and the financila support of the CoC, is the only one which has made any headway.

[Leep]

A lot of people just read head lines. SO, the take away is Trump won’t be able to do it.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Funny how the establishment’s support of illegal immigration and blamket amnesty jibes perfectly with the CoC’s desire for cheap labor.”

Apparently, all they care about. I remember when the CoC was our friend, instead of our sworn enemy.

[Red Steel]

Exactly. The question goes to the INTENT OF THE AMENDMENT. I believe Scalia would agree.

Teflon Don now has the media clowns reacting to him. What's going to happen in the next few months is going to be sight to see. Trump is going to rip their untruthful schemes apart.

Trump will be several steps ahead of them. He can have a parade of experts going through the history of citizenship pertaining to illegal immigration that has been obscured for years. He has very good back up with Senator Sessions and few more who will be put front and center on the immigration issue. When you lie all the time sitting on top of a weak and rotten limb, someone may come by and cut it off. The GOPE, Fox, and many others are about to get called out.

[DBeers]

The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that.

The judge misses the point here. Trump was not talking about stripping citizenship; he was talking about keep families together. IF parents get deported, they take their children with them.

Further, Trump wants to do away with the SCOTUS anchor baby edict. In my opinion, that can be done legislatively by with no Constitutional Amendment necessary.

[mrsmel]

It's just even more of a flashing neon light to me that the Republicans have only succeeded in pushing through one conservative policy, just one, and that was breaking the unions. Strangely enough, they manage to accomplish this (and no other conservative policy) in sync with the disclosure of the fact of the CoC funding them to support amnesty (cheap labor). It's all of a piece. They couldn't pass one conservative policy, except to bust unions, just at the same time they dig in their heels on amnesty, with major backng from the CoC and others who have interests in cheap labor.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Glad to see that you get it. I wish more of us did!

[lakecumberlandvet]

“...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”
___

You are exactly right. I don’t understand why Napolitano ignored this crucial part of the 14th.

[moehoward]

No, we’re not stuck.

Congress can eliminate the anchor baby incentive by law.

But I think you are missing a crucial point. Children born in the US can be ‘deported’ even if one parent is a US citizen. So certainly a child born to Illegal Alien parents can be deported.

[DoodleDawg]

The children of foreign nationals are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States of America. They are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the country of which their parents are citizens or subjects.

So foreign nationals cannot be arrested if they break the law in the U.S.?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

BTTT

[semimojo]

Exactly. The 1965 Immigrant Rights Law would have to repealed to end the birthright provision.

So would the 14th Amendment.

[DoodleDawg]

The children of foreign nationals are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States of America. They are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the country of which their parents are citizens or subjects.

So foreign nationals cannot be arrested if they break the law in the U.S.?

[EternalVigilance]

So foreign nationals cannot be arrested if they break the law in the U.S.?

Of course they can. They are subject to the laws of our land just like everyone else, as long as they're here. They're not entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens though.

[DoodleDawg]

By this reasoning a child born in Cancun while the parents are on vaction is a Mexican citizen?

Actually yeah, they are.

[semimojo]

The children of foreign nationals are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the United States of America.

Of course they are. They can be arrested and punished according to our laws solely on our say so.

Foreigners with diplomatic immunity? Not so much.