Posted on 08/16/2015 9:51:35 AM PDT by WilliamIII
What? What is Ted’s great plan?
A new lawlessness that has been established and that I disagree with but now is the time to fight fire with fire.
We have lost for too long buy being nice and proper. If we keep doing it there will not be another opportunity. We are at war for survival of our ideals that we were founded on.
You don’t fight fair in war. You just fight to win.
lol. Yeah, that would be pretty funny. But first things first. Build that wall.
We all know full well that an army of immigration attorneys and the ACLU will file a confetti of lawsuits and injunctions to stop the Donald in his tracks and they will have the support of obliging lower federal courts.
He needs to tell us:
1. How does he plan to identify, apprehend, and deport all illegals?
2. Dreamers will claim that they have been provided “vested rights” and it is unconstitutional to retroactively take this away from them.
3. K-12 education is a constitutional interpretation.
4. Birthright citizenship is a constitutional interpretation.
5. Right to medical treatment, even no-essential medical care, is a constitutional interpretation.
Simply declaring that he plans to move mountains (albeit a good start) is simply an illusion without specifying realistic methods and means to achieve this.
“birthright citizenship”
Constitutional notions of no ‘corruption of blood’, procedural and substantive due process, the 5th and 14th and detrimental reliance, laches (way to go Congress—you’ve only had 30 years!), hardship, etc. probably preclude chucking out the Mexican cowbird chicks already born here ... but that doesn’t mean that we can’t end the brainless practice of (so called) “birthright citizenship”.
And the `cowbirds’ themselves? Deport `em! There isn’t anything substantive behind the metaphor “anchor baby” other than wishful thinking by the left and 10% of Mexico.
The Democrats’ illegal alien voter gravy train is being retired by Trump, Inc.
Conceding #4. Birthright citizenship, everything else, 1., 2., 3., and 5. is easy Japanezee.
We can’t apprehend and deport them? The cowbird parents? The DREAMER adults Zero executived? They have a *right* to education, medication, three hots and a cot if they manage to reach a `safe house’?
Gimme a break.
You’ve been crushed by Obama for so long, Steelfish, that you’ve become the little engine that can’t ... and American’t. Too bad for you.
Just watch us.
Ted Cruz dad zero chance of getting elected.
This War. Issue the Executive orders to carry out the orders. use the Justice Dept to enforce existing law, lean on sanctuary cities and States. If necessary ignore the courts until the problem is solved.
Just keep telling yourself that.
These make for interesting reading.
Most legal citizens and traditional Americans and conservatives believe the birthright citizenship is just wrong. That it is legal is debatable. I did some research some years ago and believed that United States vs. Wong Kim Ark was the final word on the subject. It is after all a SCOTUS decision.
MIlesVERitatis and others suggest that the 14th is a smoke screen and that the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1952, 1965 etc. are the real reason behind jus soli... Wong Kim Ark citizenship by birth.
I think it is past time to challenge U.S. vs Ark by any means including but not limited to defiance, amendment or new law and just let it get all balled up in the courts while the principle of jus soli is ignored.
Any thoughts?
Note particularly the statements on the 1952 veto by Truman and the response when the veto was over ridden. This is a LONG war.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
The RATS reversed and perverted it in 1965.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
Forgot to include U.S. vs Ark 1898.
These make for interesting reading.
Most legal citizens and traditional Americans and conservatives believe the birthright citizenship is just wrong. That it is legal is debatable. I did some research some years ago and believed that United States vs. Wong Kim Ark was the final word on the subject. It is after all a SCOTUS decision.
MIlesVERitatis and others suggest that the 14th is a smoke screen and that the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1952, 1965 etc. are the real reason behind jus soli... Wong Kim Ark citizenship by birth and that by Act of Congress the practice can be reversed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
I think it is past time to challenge U.S. vs Ark by any means including but not limited to defiance, amendment or new law and just let it get all balled up in the courts while the principle of jus soli is ignored.
Any thoughts?
Note particularly the statements on the 1952 veto by Truman and the response when the veto was over ridden. This is a LONG war.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952
The RATS reversed and perverted it in 1965.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
According to Eastman there is no law but acquiescence by the government. Excerpted from the article.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2509715/posts
- - - - - -
"Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University’s law school in Orange, California, is among the leading scholars in the nation on constitutional law and has testified before Congress on the issue of birthright citizenship...
According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.
“I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”
Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws. ... "
I’ll believe it when I see it is pretty much how I feel. Even assuming Trump is being 100% honest in this rhetoric (a big leap of faith) & gets nominated and elected (not gonna be easy), you must know the enablers in Government are going to be throwing up roadblocks left and right. There is the law, lawsuits, activist judges, turncoats in the GOP, the Media, the Bureaucracy, etc, etc. At the state level, states like CA (which are basically captive to Illegals) will also resist. So, yeah, I think the cards are heavily stacked against anyone making a difference on this.
I am very jaded on this issue.
What Eastman says is what I have thought... it just started. But someone had to wonder if giving such citizenship was legal? Did someone in some courthouse just start by issuing a Birth Certificate and seeing what happened? How do you have your citizenship? I have nothing other than my Birth Certificate that started the assumption that I am a citizen.
Some counties in South Texas are now refusing to issue Birth Certificates to children of illegals... bully for them.
Still, what does Eastman have to say about U.S. vs. Ark? It seems that has to be addressed. I will read the article carefully.
I think SCOTUS was wrong in 1898... SCOTUS has proven to be wrong often and instead of applying the law have interpreted it for the time at hand and the public opinion of the time at hand... they have done this for a long, long time.
I don’t think Eastman or Erle went there in this article.
I’d say that they believe the same as you that the 1898 Wong Ark decision was in error.
I’ll start worrying more about the specifics, when I see ANYTHING from any of their the candidates that is within a dB of Trump’s statement. He has at least written goals down, which is more than can be said for any of the others.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
You need a Constitutional Amendment.
I am too but I have hope on this just by the fact of him saying the unspeakable word “deport” sure has driven the conversation. Something until now has never crossed a politicians lips. This election desperately needed someone like Trump. The ones running now are the mealy statist politicians who skirt the issue because they don’t want to hurt anyone’s feeeeelllingsss
With today’s electorate I too am of this feeling. I desperately want him however politics has changed. Most youth cannot speak a vocabulary over 140 letters (Twitter) and and believe everything they read on Facebook. Reagan would be virtually unelectable. Never mind the fact that over half the population is too stupid to even understand what Cruz says.
My bad—it was 14th Amendment—Not 13th.
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.