Mark Levin explained birthright citizenship in the opening of his show tonight and why Congress can end it without having to amend the Constitution.
Posted on 08/19/2015 7:31:05 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A few days ago, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump unveiled an actual immigration policy, which included a striking provision: "End birthright citizenship."
As regular readers know, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't leave much in the way of wiggle room: the rights of American citizenship are given to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." The principle of birthright citizenship has been upheld by the Supreme Court many times since its enactment following the Civil War.
If the Constitution says those born in the United states are citizens of the United States, what exactly does Trump intend to do about it?
Under the 14th Amendment [Fox News Bill O'Reilly] told Trump on "The O'Reilly Factor," "mass deportations of so-called birthright citizens cannot happen. Trump disagreed, and said that "many lawyers are saying that's not the way it is in terms of this."
Indeed, many assumed that Trump envisions a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. He does not. What Trump actually has in mind is a court fight in which he and his lawyers challenge the legality of constitutional language.
There's an apparent contradiction at the heart of Trump's immigration plan: he says he'd never break up a family, but he also says literally every undocumented immigrant must be rounded up and deported. Since some undocumented parents have US-born children, those tenets are in conflict: a Trump administration would either separate children from their families or it would end up deporting American citizens.
Trump could try to push for a constitutional change, but he'd rather prefer a shortcut. "It's not a long process, and I think it would take too long," he said last night. "I'd much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don't think they are." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Neither I nor any conservative/Republican likes “anchor babies” one bit, but what is the cut-off?
No citizenship to those babies dropped right after the mother crosses the border?
1 day after? 1 week after? 1 year after? 5 years after?
How does one determine the mother’s intent?
A board of inquiry where they can put the heat lamp on her face and many others faces and bombard her with questions about her intent of coming here?
“Ezekiel 18:20 “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father...” “
What on earth does that have to do with immigration? To think that the ones who wrote the 14th amendment had in mind that just any woman who steals across the border and gives birth and that birth bequeaths citizenship is insanity. Their own language in the amendment;, and their commentary, prohibits that.
So it has been all leftists who have interpreted the constitution and the 14th amendment since the Civil War? LOL. ROTFL. That’s a good one.
Two articles posted yesterday:
Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution (Audio) - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326541/posts
Fixing the Birthright Citizenship Loophole: Myth vs Fact - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326368/posts
As are the liberal CNN polls?
Secure the border and enforce the law to stop the bleeding before trying to cure the disease.
Birthright citizenship is only an issue because of the continuous bleeding.
“Trump did not question the legality of the Constitution.”
The writer knows that. That reminds me of the snark I use to hear from liberals in college — extend, as it were, the meaning of what someone says with a false slant. It is just an attempt to smear Trump.
He laid out an outline - just because you don’t like him you want to bash him. And, just what detailed proposals has your candidate laid out for all to see? Inquiring minds want to know. Bedsides, Trump has some of the best lawyers looking over things as well as he worked with Jeff Sessions on this plan - so put that in your negative pipe and smoke it.
“It’s not a long process, and I think it would take too long,” he said last night
Trump appears to be channeling Yogi Berra.
Well Ann Coulter wrote an article a few years back laying out the arguments and the issue is far from cut and dried. This article leaves out an essential part of the 14th amendment language in this regard. Only those born here and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Thus it clearly applied to freed ex-slaves for whom it was written but for 100 years the court never held it to apply to children of those here illegally or only temporarily. Then in 1984 Justice Brennen slipped a footnote into a decision which appears to apply this provision of the 14th to those here illegally as well as those here legally and permanently. 100 years of precedent vs. one footnote? Thus the birthright citizenship as a constitutional right is far from settled.
So, once again, what is the cut off date?
There will have to be a cut-off date.
No citizenship to babies dropped right after the mother crosses the border?
1 week after? 1 year after? 5 years after?
If it is 5 years since she came to the US illegals, say, and it was her intent to come her and have an anchor baby, do you then strip the child of US citizenship?
But how do you even determine her intent of coming here illegally in the first place?
People can blow hot air and huff and puff, but when things get to the particulars then all some people do is blow more hot air.
Trump is correct to take this tack. But the issue will become a very small one after a year or so of serious enforcement anyway.
Gay, he did nothing of the sort. And Mark Levin destroyed Mexican anchor babies as 14th amendment citizens. Even Indians didn’t get citizenship then. It was solely an amendment designed to accommodate former slaves.
Here we go again with a purposefully deceptive, twisted headline to cast dispersions and ridicule Trump. These bastards deliberately do this because low information voters will believe it and never go deeper than the headline.
“Trump questions the legality of the constitution”.
I can smell their fear.
“What is, is?
Length of time has nothing whatsoever to do with the question.
As Mark Levin pointed out yesterday, the country decides immigration policy, not illegal immigrants.
If someone steals your bank account, does length of time grant him legitimate ownership? What length of time would you assign?
So we ignore Stare Decisis when it serves us to do so, even if it has gone through lefties and righties on the courts from the Civil War until now?
Give me then an absolutely and infinitely perfect decision on the 14th Amendment.
When did MSNBC start caring about the Constitution?
Is she a citizen? No? The kid ain’t either.
Pretty interesting you’d go to MSLSD to dump on Trump and rip a good conservative policy issue.
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.