Posted on 08/18/2015 2:43:34 PM PDT by bestintxas
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is declining to comment directly on Republican presidential campaign rival Donald Trump's immigration policy, which would repeal the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to immigrant children born in the U.S.
But he adds during a press conference at the Iowa State Fair that there are immigrants who, in his opinion, misuse the intent of the provision.
Standing with Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley near the livestock pavilion, Rubio says: "There are people that come to the United States deliberately for the purposes of having a child that's a U.S. citizen."Unlike Trump, Rubio says: "I'm not in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment."
Like several Republicans who spoke about the issue Monday, he says: "I am open to exploring ways of not allowing people in, who are coming here deliberately for that purpose."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Not very smart, Marco.
We don't care what Rubio thinks. He lost his chance to impress us with his opinions back when he supported Amnesty.
Um, how about enforcing it as it is actually written along with keeping the invaders out? All of them no matter what country they come from to take advantage of liberal loopholes.
Trump is disposing of Kasich and Rubio in one package : )
Rubio is stuck with his past and he can’t get himself free. Jeb is stuck, too.
Oh he's fishing for the Mexican/Latino vote right there.......he's got no place else to go!
Desperation!
And we don’t care what the Constitution says ..It was written along time ago.
The 14th amendment DOES NOT make any such guarantee.
It specifically says those, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” An illegal alien is not an American and should be subject to their own country’s jurisdiction. That is why we should send them all back forthwith...unless they have injured or killed someone, or destroyer or stolen property. Then they should be severely punished and then immediately sent back.
That’s why babies born here should be given first aide...and then immediately deported with their mother.
It can, and should, be interpreted that way.
We just need politicians and then appointed judges who will properly interpret it according to the intent of the founders, and the interest of the United States..
FUMR.......Go Donald!
....”We just need politicians and then appointed judges who will properly interpret it “....
Well they aren’t and have no intentions of doing so or they would have argued and settled it by know. Every time they’ve tried they’ve failed.
....”We just need politicians and then appointed judges who will properly interpret it “....
Well they aren’t and have no intentions of doing so or they would have argued and settled it by know. Every time they’ve tried they’ve failed.
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
This is a reference to diplomats who are not subject to US jurisdiction, hence “diplomatic immunity”
Maybe you don't, but I do. Of course it doesn't say anything about authorizing anchor babies.
You are right...but given what we are seeing...perhaps the times (at long last), they are a changing.
One can hope...and pray, because that is what it is going to take.
It is amazing how many people go batshit crazy when you suggest limiting birthright citizenship by quoting the actual words of the 14th Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.