“Aarrrrrggggg! Haha! Build a wall. Raise the ramparts. Pirates, aho.”
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 ...
I agree with him as the reason many Mexican women came across the border to give birth was for bennies for the kid.
“Aarrrrrggggg! Haha! Build a wall. Raise the ramparts. Pirates, aho.”
So do you want a uniparty where DEM and GOP politicians have been bought by Trump (i.e. some in the media and running for the GOP nomination are saying that Trump has bought politicians)?
Strawman.
It isn’t radical to say that we need to deal with anchor babies.
What can get called radical is how one says things.
The Scrotus can’t make law from the bench you ignorant fark stick.
With some exceptions in case law for diplomats
___________________________________________
When you see a foreign diplomat sue the US for granting citizenship to the anchor babies of illegal aliens while denying the children of persons invited here to represent their country, then you can say again what you tried to say..
But foreign diplomats know that illegal aliens cant claim American citizenship for their children either...
No.
In your own mind, you don't understand the 14th amendment.
It's been covered enough here over the years.
I'd say that is a job for the other GOP hopefuls. And I hope they get to it pronto, because there are some scary characters on that train who care about the Constitution about as much as Obama does. It would be a shame to get rid of one statist wrecking crew only to replace it with another.
Very well said.
:)
I will not waiver in my support for Cruz.
I am taking some heat here, but it is all good. I hold no ill will to anyone, no matter what they say.
In the end, the border must be sealed first, and then we go from there. The right words must be used in this fight or a GOP candidate can potentially get relegated to being called a carnival barker or a demagogue.
As well, “too many irons in the fire” can ruin all the irons, and yet people can’t seem to see this on this thread.
If Trump puts too many irons in the fire and if he adds one thing after another to sealing the border the fire won’t heat anything enough.
“I don’t like what the open borders people say, but I think that the “Aarrrrrggggg! Haha! Build a wall. Raise the ramparts. Pirates, aho.” stichk is wearing thin.”
It shouldn’t. I’ll be the first to agree that all walls have gates (or other openings), and are only as reliable as the people entrusted to keep control of those openings. A person, say Obama’s hypothetical son, could simply “open the gates” and, yet again, flood this country with Illegals. But a person that builds the wall (like Trump) will, very likely, make sure that those passing through the gates are ONLY those that we want.
A positive mind finds a way it can be done. A negative mind looks for all the ways it can’t be done. You are a very negative person with a negative mind. You cannot think like the achiever-type of people. Therefore you think everything cannot be done. I’m glad you are not running for President.
Is that right? I give you Roe v Wade and a brand new privacy right created out of thin air right from the bench. Not good enough? I give you Obergefell v. Hodges which just legalized gay marriage in all 50 states.
Is that enough making law from the bench for you?
You can quit with nonsense insults since you are plainly wrong.
Want to end birthright citizenship. You need a constitutional amendment or new Supreme Court judges.
“Good luck getting the Constitutional amendment passed...”
Why not? NEVER UNDERESTIMATE the power that a President has to shape public opinion. The makeup of the state legislators already makes conservative ideas a very real possibility - having a President that is willing and able to CONNECT with the people to force something like this into law should never be taken lightly. If Trump needs to amend the Constitution, he may well pull it off, and very quickly.
Deport 25-40 million and let the "good ones" jump the line to get back in?
What's the criteria for "good ones"? Never committed a crime? They all have at least broken immigration laws, stolen identities, worked illegally.
Never accepted welfare, child tax credits, used a hospital and not paid, not had their illegal children or anchor babies in school and on free lunch? Good luck with that!
'Course that would leave only a dozen or so eligible to come back so it could work.
“Trump dropped...He dropped in the latest CNN poll...”
If you discount what he has said and published today, you do so at YOUR OWN PERIL.
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.
Don’t trust me...just watch.
I have proposed that congress should pass a bill that defines
what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.
-
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
-
“...children born to parents who have no foreign allegiance,
not merely those born within its geographical limits,
should be citizens of the United States...”
But foreign diplomats know that illegal aliens cant claim American citizenship for their children either...
What are you arguing about precisely? Is there currently birthright citizenship or not? Do you think the US Supreme Court would be willing to find a law constitutional that overturns birthright citizenship? Yes or no. Simple as that. The answer by the way is no, they would not.
As to your foreign diplomats point, err, what is it? The law is as follows:
"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."
Foreign diplomats children are not considered under the jurisdiction thereof, which is why they are not given citizenship.
Your argument is with the court. The Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. Either get a constitutional amendment or change the court justices. The latter will be much easier.
Trump is absolutely right. Of course, the children should be deported - and there are many reasons why this is the right thing to do.
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.