I read the transcript of a Trump interview and (IIRC) he said the anchor babies could stay, but the family members who came illegally had to go back. The decision would be made by the family if they wanted to go back as a family or leave the children/citizens here. It would be up to the family. But, bottom line, the illegals had to return to wherever they came from.
I was thinking the same thing: that the 14th amendment babies should be entitled to stay ... but why?
Exactly when did we start accepting this excuse for breaking our laws?
When did judges start telling convicted criminals: “Yes, if you are sent away, it will work a hardship on your children. You are excused.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
Do you think Eisenhower instructed his law officers, “But if they have children, or a child born here, or if it’s someone who looks kinda young, 20s or 30s, sort of dreamy lookin’—let `em stay.”
Hell no. This is the sort of moral equivalism that the left has been force-feeding the country since the late `70s. Notice the article mentions the words “ethics” applied to the Border Patrol.
So again, when did this “Born in the USA? ju out of deportation/anchor baby!” nonsense start? (And don’t start that Wong Kim Ark circular argument/begging the question bull squeeze.)