Posted on 08/26/2015 10:37:19 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Last night on Donald Trump's least favorite Fox News program, The Kelly File, GOP contender Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) also went after the suddenly controversial interviewer, complaining that a question she kept pressing him on—whether he'd deport the U.S.-citizen children of illegal immigrants, as Donald Trump would—is "the question every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask." Sick burn!
Anyway, the question—which Cruz, to his discredit, refused to answer—is an important one for those many 2016 GOP candidates (Trump, Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, etc.) who have come out against the birthright citizenship established by the plain text of the 14th amendment. We get that you wish to change the existing rules somehow (Trump and Ron Paul, to name two people, think you can do so without a constitutional amendment), but what to do about the estimated 4 million American-citizen kids having at least one illegal-immigrant parent? Given the rapid Trumpification of the 2016 nominating process, and Cruz's demonstrated readiness to strip U.S. citizenship in other contexts, the issue of forcibly expelling Americans from their native country—regardless of how appalling—is a live one, demanding clarification.
Here's a detail that rarely gets brought up during nonsense-filled immigration debates: President Barack Obama has been a much bigger deporter-in-chief than George W. Bush. The Department of Homeland Security issued 2 million deportations during Bush's tenure; Obama blew through that number in Year Five of his presidency:
The administration has since made a sharp policy turn, triggering some of the heated debate we've seen over the past year, but there's no guarantee that his late-breaking deportation slowdown would be carried on by the next Democratic president, particularly if it's restrictionist Bernie Sanders.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Exactly, where they live has no baring on the status of their US citizenship. There is no residency requirement for a citizen born in the US.
Once they reach the age of 23 they can then petition to have their parents immigrate lawfully as immediate relatives (IR-1).
That is what this anchor baby thing is really about.
Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.
“The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Mr. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.
Mr. Cruz said recent polling indicated that people outside Washington support some reform, including legal status without citizenship. He said he was against naturalization because it rewarded lawbreakers and was unfair to legal immigrants. It also perpetuates illegal crossings, he added.
Besides barring citizenship while instituting some level of legalization for those here already, Mr. Cruz has proposed increasing the number of green cards awarded annually, to 1.35 million from 675,000. He also wants to eliminate the per-country limit that he said left applicants from countries like Mexico, China and India hamstrung when they tried to gain legal entry to this country.
Yes! This! Unlike Dear Leader who used EO’s......
You can’t deport US citizens. What an idiotic question.
This the only logical plan to fix the open borders problem.
As soon as these little anchor babies turn 18 throw the parents out
Silly question. No one can deport an American citizen.
If you deport the parents, then obviously the kids will go with their parents, thats only logical. But that isn’t a deportation, its what families do. Nobody is going to abandon their kids in a foreign country when they return home, at least no one with any decency.
Now, when the kids are of age and want to go back to the US, thats their business.
Hmmmm, that is true. But if Congress were to revoke that erroneously granted citizenship, it would be a different story, would it not...?
Another way to address it would be a Convention.
They can do it retroactive, or not....
My preference would vary with enactment of a total suspension of all immigration for a period of years, (at least one generation)
That's where the numbers (and the welfare benefits cost) pile up.
Howse about these questions for Boosh and Rubberio: Sir, would you be against deporting violent felons who happen to be the parent of an anchor baby or is "family reunification" more important?
Would you be against a 14th Amendment-compatible policy (under present day's tortured reading) of denying pregnant women visitors visas in order to prevent anchor baby skulduggery?
Maybe Ms. Me-Gyn can get to work on these.
Ted has no obligation to answer loaded questions.
Just as with “life of the mother” or “rape and incest” when it comes to abortion, these are bogus excuses to justify the unbridled practice.
If you Build the Wall, control entry, use E-Verify, and actively return those entering illegally, Deport the criminals, stop taxpayer funded benefits, then the incentives stop, and large numbers self-deport.
This all will take time, but after 3 or 4 years there will be millions fewer to consider for deportation.
Therein lies the real problem and it's going to be a continuous one until there is a major change of opinion in the republican ranks.
I generally listen to radio shows chock full of the republican analysts and taking heads..They appear to be 100% in agreement that the 14th amendment says that citizenship is a birthright in this country.
In my view they are 100% wrong, but they are unapologetic about it and think anyone with a contrarian view is a idiot.
Man, you guys are a bunch of concern trolls. Why do we never see your breathless reports on Jeb Bush’s insane statements? Maybe that’s because you have a bone to pick for no reason.
And just who is your glorious candidate who is on cue 100% of the time? I thought so.
A deliberately sloppy way to ask the question. The real question is: Would you deport the illegal parents of anchor baby children?
Answer: Yes, and I assume the parents would want to keep their families together and would taken their minor, citizen children with them.
His answer makes sense, really. He knows that Constitutionally a president is NOT allowed to “make laws” himself. Yes, I know that Obama has over-ridden than effectively, but let’s be honest...do we want to keep on letting presidents make laws by fiat? By memos to this staff or another department? He cannot do what is NOT ALLOWED by the Constitution. Will he try to get certain things done? Yes, but he is wise not to promise those things because Congress is OFTEN unwilling to go along with republican presidents. We are letting the media take out our best candidates on silly stuff? Good grief! Even if Ted Cruz wins, do we really want him to rule like a dictator?
We are supposed to be Constitution-loving people here at Freerepublic.com. Let’s not forget the real issue here. Cruz cannot just do certain things, undoing laws that Congress passed, for one. He can over-ride EOs, but that is all. Laws have to be legally over-ridden by Congress.
The media are out for a story. They will make anybody look bad for the ratings. I am SOOOOOOOO glad I don’t have a TV. I’d have probably ruined it by now.
Well put.
It is NOT plain text reading. The 14th does not allow babies of visitors to become US citizens. To believe so IS bastardizing the clear intent.
This is a trap BS question.
It is a direct kin to “how often do you beat your dog.”
CUSTODY FOLLOWS THE PARENTS.
The minor is in the custody of the parents. CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT MATTER. The child goes with the parents. The parents are deported and the children go with them. US citizen or not us citizen.
Custody does NOT follow the parents.
On O’Reily Monday night. O’Reily asked Trump the same question Megan Kelly asked Cruz. Trump’s answer was that he would deport the family but that many of the families were wonderful people and that he would expedite their return. To Trump’s credit he did answer the question.
>> Once they reach the age of 23 they can then petition to have their parents immigrate lawfully as immediate relatives <<
And THAT provision, my FRiend, can be changed directly, easily and unambiguously by simple statute. Congress passes and POTUS signs. Period.
In other words, main problem could be solved without all the current hysterical and pointless discussion about the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.
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.