Posted on 08/16/2015 12:42:58 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants more than a wall to keep out immigrants living in the country illegally. He also wants to end "birthright citizenship" for their children, he said Sunday. And he would rescind Obama administration executive orders on immigration and toughen deportation, allowing in only "the good ones."
Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected right of any family living illegally inside the U.S. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
There is way to say things, and a way to not say them.
But, if you don’t “say” them, you have “nothing” said.
We need to put troops on the border or have sufficient BP to stop all illegal entry including drugs.
If someone overstays a visa they go to prison for 2 years then get deported with no readmittance.
E Verify is mandatory for employment. Employers that knowingly hire an illegal go to prison for 2 years per illegal.
No birthright citizenship. That was never the intent of the 14th Amd.
No welfare or SS.
End sanctuary cities. No federal tax dollars and government officials are arrested and prosecuted for breaking federal law.
No medical care other than emergency care.
Drastically tighten asylum criteria.
Build refugee camps and that's where they stay until they find somewhere else to go.
No mohammaden immigrants.
If foreign soldiers invaded this county, and the females had babies while here, would we consider the babies citizens?
How about invading hordes?
No, I think the foreign soldier thing is addressed as an AG legal opinion some years after the 14th amendment passed. Not really sure about that though.
Again, you do realize that I OPPOSE the current interpretation of the 14th amendment that grants birthright citizenship to hordes of illegal alien babies. My point isn’t that it is correct, rather how do we change it?
The question is, as long as the Supreme Court interprets the 14th to grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegals, what can we do to stop it? Realistic options are what I am looking for. I don’t see any other than getting 4-5 new justices on the court that would rule that the 14th does NOT grant birthright to the babies of illegals.
Perhaps by virtue of them disobeying the basic laws of this country, before, during and after their border crossing, makes them invading horde, and not simply "undocumented" immigrants.
I believe that is the whole push behind the PC terminology change, as an effort to make the 14th read more favorable.
First you would need a court that would even take the case. This one almost certainly would not.
Before it could even get to SCOTUS the case would have to wind its way through the circuit then appeals courts, and then you’d have to hope the Supreme Court would even give it a hearing (the lower courts would already have likely ruled against any challenge to current interpretation of the 14th).
This is why I get back to the idea we need 4-5 new Supreme Court justices. What we need is a court that would be willing to either take the case on appeal or pluck it out from the lower courts. We’d need a SCOTUS that was interested in hearing the case, preferably one that would encourage it to be expedited through the system.
If we had a decent bench of justices you could probably achieve this if both the Legislative and Executive branches forced the issue. But all this relies on a different SCOTUS and a Legislature and Executive that challenge the status quo. This is not going to be an easy thing to achieve. There would really probably need to be a sea change in attitudes on this issue by the vast majority of Americans to nudge the courts to even listen.
There is no Constitutional Authority for ANY court save the SCOTUS.
What exists now is an invention of LAWYERS.
It can be destroyed with the stroke of a pen.
i.e. Accept "birthright citizenship" for the time being in exchange for a path to green cards (not citizenship) for a limited number of illegals and deportation of the portion which 80% of America agrees is undesirable (criminals, chronic wards of the state, etc.)
Regarding anchor children. Parents should be booted out and if they don’t want their kids to come I take it they probably have some legal family they can give power of attorney for so they can stay with the legal side of the family.
If they have nobody, let them go with parents and they can come back when 18.
He is right for wanting to seal the borders and trying to end illegal immigration, but he may end up being called the Michael Savage candidate for the GOP if he keep the overheated rhetoric up.
He what should be a wimpy apologizing politically correct clone like the rest of the GOP candidates?
About time someone got in the MSM and Dims face over this!
Your Freep name is spot on....You got that right on the first try...Bravo!!!! (golf clap)
Are you sure you don’t work for The Cheap Labor Express?
Many on FR do...(and the RNC)....Beware!
VRWCarea51, 1st Battalion, A Company. Vulgarian Army, Free Republic
Let the court then disprove it. They would be forced to here it.
I do realize we need to change the current makeup. Not just for this problem, but in general, the current bunch has a piss poor rendering of the US Constitution.
Well, there is really no telling what we could do if we had massive popular support for ending birthright and demands for a reinterpretation of the 14th amendment - but getting that kind of groundswell of support would be very difficult given the divisions within the country.
If we had such a surge of support, I suppose the Executive branch could do as you suggest, the Legislative branch could agree (this assumes we have pretty overwhelming Republican numbers in both chambers) and 2 of the 3 branches of government could just tell SCOTUS to sod off.
You would really need to unite Republicans (to include almost all whites), union workers, a good chunk of blacks, etc, to do it though. Rare moments in history happen now and again, but this scenario of mine is more pie in the sky than anything else.
It would be nice to tell the Supreme Court to take a hike though. They could issue their rulings and the other 2 branches could laugh and ask them how they intend to enforce them. Though fun to imagine, I think we both know the odds of it happening are about slim to none.
Changing out the justices is the best I can come up with for the birthright issue. I suppose if we had the numbers we could impeach the liberals and replace them. Or, a conservative President could threaten to pack the court like FDR did to make them go along. I suppose if that doesn’t work, he or she really could add more justices. There is nothing I am aware of that enshrines 9 justices as the end all be all on the SCOTUS.
As a side, what gives the scotus their power is the rule of law. The fact that this nation is bound by, and behavior based on, the Rule Of Law, and not legions of military force.
It has come to pass that they use that ROL as the very source of their perceived power, making "lawful" declarations that must stand.
It is the same tactic libs have been using for 60 plus years, hiding behind the ROL, shopping for crooked judges that uphold the whim of the few, not the will of the people, knowing that "lawful" conservatives will obey.
It is time to force the issues. It is time for our side to in effect, laugh at the supremes, and ask them what are they going to do about it.
“He is right for wanting to seal the borders and trying to end illegal immigration, but he may end up being called the Michael Savage candidate for the GOP if he keep the overheated rhetoric up.”
By all means, he wouldn’t want to be called a name. He should just cower like the other candidates.
That is what our founding fathers risked all the had for, after all /s
“Trump will again be STRONGER THAN EVER, as he is the FIRST ONE to point out the elephant in the living room - which are the Illegals that need to go home.”
I sat out the 2008 election (president only) - I could never vote for McAmnesty. Illegal immigration has been my #1 topic ling before it was cool.
I’ll gladly vote for Trump now. I’ll gladly work for Trump. Cruz was the only other one I’d vote for, but his stance on illegals was rather milktoastish.
“The man has courage .. at least in his statements. No telling whether any of this would actually happen if he won the Presidency. But more importantly to me this signals Trump’s willingness to touch so-called sacred rails and then just drive a 2 ton flatbed right over them.”
He’s exactly what we need in this insane, OC time. He’s reading 1984 and exposing all the lies.
Meaning from Spain?
I always thought it was insulting to call 3rd world mobs by names associated with a rich history, like Italy - Latino - or Spain - Hispanic.
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.