Posted on 08/20/2015 12:01:48 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Mediaite and Politico are running headlines for this segment claiming that Trump said the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, which is cute but unfair. What he's saying, in his own...folksy way, is that he thinks the Supremes will side with him in finding that birth right citizenship under the Constitution doesn't apply to children of illegals. What's newsy is him implying that that ruling should apply not just prospectively but retroactively ("I don't think they have American citizenship") meaning that many thousands of people - some now adults - who have lived all their lives in America would suddenly find themselves stateless.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I was using hyperbole. My point is what he is for now he was against a few months ago. He has very liberal leanings and seems to only have been born again conservative in the last couple months.
So I take it that is a no on the bet and you just post shit to stir the pot because of your disdain for Trump?
Hyperbole and bs are two different things.
For the record, I know exactly what Trump is, and in my estimation is not a solid conservative, but I do love how he has shaken the establishment to the core.
These people have been told they were Americans, by the powers that be. I seriously doubt that they can retroactively strip them of citizenship. I think the best we can hope for, is to close that loophole and stop that from happening again in the future.
Section 1. 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.
I’m having a hard time finding any way to interpret this other than anyone born in the US is a citizen. There is no wiggle room that I can find. I don’t like it, but if I try to interpret this, I’ll have to allow others to interpret the 2nd amendment as well.
Pfft, what rhetorical flatulence, that idea stinks.
“They clearly do have citizenship under the current Nationality Act. Whether the birthright citizenship provisions of that statute could be repealed without violating the 14th Amendment is debatable, but to say they “don’t have” citizenship is just plain wrong.”
What the Nationality Act says is nearly verbatim to the 14th Amendment:
INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html
****
If you meet certain requirements, you may become a U.S. citizen either at birth or after birth.
To become a citizen at birth, you must:
• Have been born in the United States or certain territories or outlying possessions of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; OR
• had a parent or parents who were citizens at the time of your birth (if you were born abroad) and meet other requirements
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship
****
The question is, are they subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
Seeing as how the parents have defied U.S. jurisdiction by skirting our immigration laws, how can being born here as the result of a criminal act place one under the jurisdiction thereof?
Section 1. 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.
I’m having a hard time finding any way to interpret this other than anyone born in the US is a citizen. There is no wiggle room that I can find. I don’t like it, but if I try to interpret this, I’ll have to allow others to interpret the 2nd amendment as well.
What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2139082/posts
MORE:
Using native Americans as a reference to show that “born on soil” does not always confer “natural born Citizen” status:
“After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to ‘{All} persons BORN or naturalized in the United States,’ that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of OTHER sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” (emphases mine)
http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm
STE=Q
Yay. Mission accomplished. How about we all get behind an actual conservative who can actually win in 2016. There are a number of them among the 17 or 26 or whatever the number is. Its early. Watch and listen and decide who will win and govern conservatively. This is the most promising group of Republicans I can remember. I understand Trump gets everybody riled up but that is not enough for me.
I don't hate him. Just don't trust him. He can “say” anything he wants. Cruz has been in the action, taking the consequences for unpopular positions even with his own party. Not to mention that Trump is a bankrupt has been who has made his second fortune on smiling with his dumb hair piece on camera.
That's the way the old illegal ball bounces.
FRiend, please go back, reread and comprehend what I wrote.....sheesh.
I'd be happy to, please tell me who the pure conservative candidate is, I'll gladly get behind him.
Sorry FRiend, I disagree. I think this is the saddest crop of candidates imaginable.
Cruz, which I am leaning toward has his problems too...your advice of watch and listen is one I've advocated for a long time here because yes, it is early ;)
How about we all get behind an actual conservative who can actually win in 2016.
I'd be happy to, please tell me who the pure conservative candidate is, I'll gladly get behind him.
This is the most promising group of Republicans I can remember
Sorry FRiend, I disagree. I think this is the saddest crop of candidates imaginable.
Cruz, which I am leaning toward has his problems too...your advice of watch and listen is one I've advocated for a long time here because yes, it is early ;)
Back when this was written the meaning of having jurisdiction over meant you had allegiance too. Thus Great Britain having jurisdiction over because you were born there meant you had allegiance too.
Illegal aliens break US laws all the time so are subject to US jurisdiction? Mexico retrains jurisdiction over them and their allegiance.
Justice Brennan’s Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies—Ann Coulter:
http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/
The reason illegals can be deported is because they ARE “subject to the jurisdiction” of our immigration laws. The only people in the U.S. who aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law are people with diplomatic immunity and members of a foreign invading military on American soil.
Under federal law, anyone with a U.S. Passport is a national and/or citizen:
The law: 42 CFR § 435.407 Types of acceptable documentary evidence of citizenship.
For purposes of this section, the term “citizenship” includes status as a “national of the United States” as defined by section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)) to include both citizens of the United States and non-citizen nationals of the United States.
(a) Primary evidence of citizenship and identity. The following evidence must be accepted as satisfactory documentary evidence of both identity and citizenship:
(1) A U.S. passport. The Department of State issues this. A U.S. passport does not have to be currently valid to be accepted as evidence of U.S. citizenship, as long as it was originally issued without limitation. Note: Spouses and children were sometimes included on one passport through 1980. U.S. passports issued after 1980 show only one person. Consequently, the citizenship and identity of the included person can be established when one of these passports is presented. Exception: Do not accept any passport as evidence of U.S. citizenship when it was issued with a limitation. However, such a passport may be used as proof of identity.
(2) A Certificate of Naturalization (DHS Forms N-550 or N-570.) Department of Homeland Security issues for naturalization.
(3) A Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (DHS Forms N-560 or N-561.) Department of Homeland Security issues certificates of citizenship to individuals who derive citizenship through a parent.
(4) A valid State-issued driver’s license, but only if the State issuing the license requires proof of U.S. citizenship before issuance of such license or obtains a social security number from the applicant and verifies before certification that such number is valid and assigned to the applicant who is a citizen.
[excerpt]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/42/435.407
What are you talking about?
Watch the clip of Cruz at this link: he argues definitively that the 14th provides for anchor baby citizenship and that conservatives shouldn’t bother trying to fight it.
“Absolutely,” Cruz replied. “We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally.”
Where’d you get that from?
The clip has him going on and on about his credentials and study to know that the 14th Amendment grants it—and then he says that we shouldn’t waste our time trying to change it.
Where’d you get that from?
( shot yer self in the brain)
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.