Posted on 08/19/2015 8:17:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly during an interview Tuesday night repeatedly challenged a key portion of Donald Trump's immigration agenda.
The real-estate magnate and Republican presidential candidate recently unveiled his multipart plan to clamp down on illegal immigration. Among other things, Trump called for ending birthright citizenship, or the right of anyone born in the US to American citizenship.
As O'Reilly pointed out, however, the US Constitution's 14th Amendment enshrines birthright citizenship into US law.
"That's not going to happen because the 14th Amendment says if you're born here, you're an American," O'Reilly said. "And you can't kick Americans out. The courts would block you at every turn. You must know all that."
Trump insisted that the Constitution did not grant citizenship to so-called anchor babies, a pejorative term used to describe the children of people who enter the country illegally with the purpose of having a son or daughter who would then be granted US citizenship.
"Bill, I think you're wrong about the 14th Amendment," Trump said. "And frankly, the whole thing with 'anchor babies' and the concept of 'anchor babies' — I don't think you're right about that."
O'Reilly was incredulous.
"I can quote it!" O'Reilly exclaimed. "You want me to quote you the amendment? If you're born here, you're an American — period! Period!"
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I don’t like that Trump says he has lawyers. Doesn’t he know enough to have a view of his own?
What?
Trump isn’t a lawyer, thank God! That being said, isn’t it smart for Trump to present his views in a legal way?
You don’t need to deport them. Just cut off the free benefits and incentives and they illegals and “citizens” will leave.
Yep, and also strictly enforce penalties for businesses who hire them.
This will require hiring a lot of Federal law enforcement officers because I can guarantee this — SANCTUARY CITIES WILL NOT COOPERATE.
“Probably true that you can’t deport anchor babies who were born here under the current rules. The courts will never allow that.”
The modern U.S. Courts and the primarily liberal lawyers that populate them, have been deliberately misinterpreting the Constitution at whim. They ignore the actual historical intent of the Constitution and it’s individual parts all the time. The intent of babies born in our country being U.S. citizens came out of the Civil War and was meant to prevent further misuse of slaves by granting them equal protection under the law.
This protection was for anyone under the “jurisdiction” of our country and its laws. The question is, if someone illegally enters our country for a couple of days to give birth to a baby, is that baby truly a U.S. citizen. Of course not, as the parents were never under the jurisdiction of our country by birth or naturalization and entered our country illegally in the first place.
Equally, the intent of the 2nd Amendment regarding gun rights is for an armed citizenry, and not only that “militias” should be armed, as “militias” are indeed made up of that very same armed citizenry, in other words, made up of all of us.
Both these sections of the Constitution have been deliberately misused and misconstrued by leftists intent on ignoring aspects of the Constitution unless it can be interpreted to their own benefit. Obama studied the Constitution in College in order to learn how to best circumvent it.
These socialist/commie/pinko/fascists want to destroy our Constitution, not preserve it. Trump is right (see Mark Levin for correct interpretation) regarding the 14th Amendment, and BOR, as he often is, is wrong. We must remain hyper vigilant as to what the socialist deviants among us are up to as they want to ruin our country and establish a dictatorship of the left. Liberalism is indeed a mental disease.
True, maybe if they abolish the IRS that will free up a bunch of office space :)
Thanks to Mark Levin, we now have a good reference from the post Civil War congressional record which shows that OReilly’s statement about the 14th Amendment and automatic citizenship is wrong.
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [emphases added], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” — Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.
I think the point though is that that illegals choose NOT to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US. Whether or not they can be prosecuted for crimes is irrelevant. They are purposely AVOIDING being under the jurisdiction of the United States.
It's intent. Someone on a visa for example chooses to subject themselves to the jurisdiction. In other words, they are taking a legal route to be here and fully accepting the jurisdiction of the United States over them and have legally made that choice.
Define jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship and presto, issue resolved.
Also o’blowhard forgot the FACT custody follows parents not child. The child’s citizenship does not matter. Deport the parents and the child goes with the parents.
Do you have a link to that audio? :)
What I love about the media including O’Reilly is that they are always there to tell you what will not work but cannot tell you what will. It’s no wonder people hate the media.
O’Reilly is all about making the possible impossible.
Trump is all about making the impossible possible.
O’Reilly is a bird brain.
But whether or not you are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. does not depend on whether one chooses to be subject to jurisdiction. To use the example of a diplomat again, a diplomat may choose to subject himself to the jurisdiction of the U.S. (if arrested, the diplomat can choose not to assert diplomatic immunity, though most obviously do not make that choice). But, even if the diplomat chooses to subject himself to U.S. jurisdiction, that does not mean that a child of the diplomat is a U.S. citizen.
Choice is irrelevant - whether or not someone is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. is a function of law, not that person's choices.
In that case IF the United States could (or would) perfectly execute its jurisdiction then this situation would never exist. Illegal aliens would never be here because, under the law, they are not supposed to be here. Therefore illegals having a baby, in theory, should never exist.
They didn't write this amendment based on the notion that there would be widespread lawbreaking and widespread non-enforcement of law.
Jurisdiction definition: "the official power to make LEGAL decisions and judgments."
They wrote it to address people that are here LEGALLY. Not to address people that are here ILLEGALLY.
ILLEGALS are under the jurisdiction of wherever they come from. Yes, they can be tried and prosecuted for violating the law but there is little to no wording in most laws which say they only apply to LEGAL citizens.
I am as opposed to illegal immigration as anyone I know. I support changing the law but not making it retroactive. That would open more cans of worms than anyone could deal with. To be honest the courts would not stand for it for a minute and if changes could made the retroactive issue would likely get it all overturned. I honestly doubt the way citizenship is determined as being born here can be changed, but I sure hope it can. To make it retroactive, that really isn’t going to fly.
Ol’ Ted Baxter missing the context once again.
"The 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. It has always been suspect. The late David Lawrence--for many decades the Publisher of U.S. News & World Report, repeatedly challenged its legitimacy himself, and repeatedly published articles by legal scholars challenging its legitimacy.
"I do not have a link, but I suspect that some of that material is available on the net.
"I do have a brief note on the subject in the last Chapter of my Debate Handbook. For the online version of the last Chapter of the Handbook, try Chapter Last.
"Lawrence, as I, believed it a disgrace that the Courts had never recognized the problem with the Fourteenth Amendment. (There is, also, one other remedy to interpretations of the Amendment, in that Congress does have the power to define how it will be enforced.)"
If this little dust-off, i.e., media lightweights vs. Trump, ends by waking people up to the "Fourteenth Amendment," it will only be 148 years over-due. Virtually every social issue, where Judicial Activism upsets Conservatives, has developed as a direct consequence of the "14th Amendment."
Yes, yes, yes, and yes! That is the answer, the laws are already in place, they just need to be strictly enforced.
I would like to see the interpretation of the 14th changed and a clear citizenship policy where at least one parent must be a citizen for anyone born here to automatically be a citizen. That will indeed be a long hard fight and it is more important to accomplish the four things you pointed out; which would make a huge difference to this country, while also attempting to change birthright citizenship.
I can speak for myself extemporaneously without having to “lawyer-up” for every opinion I may have that I at least know something about.
My view of the 14th Amendment in this case is that anchor babies are citizens. I believe the Constitution may require some amending (not legislating) in this case, but the current wording is pretty clear.
That you don’t agree scooby 321 is your right. But I’ve been around here for awhile too to where I think that with your even longer history, your labeling of one with a different outlook than yourself seems fairly juvenile. But to each his or her own “feelings”.
I find that there are a lot of conservatives on this website who do not grasp the detrimental nature of the 14th amendment, and are also not familiar with the despicable manner in which it was shoved down people's throats against their will.
Agreed! Let us resolve, then, in true friendship to our potential allies, to wake them up. The “Amendment” is close to being the root of most 20th Century domestic evil—including the suppression of religious expressions, abortion, Federal meddling in all sorts of things, etc..
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.