There's Nothing in the Constitution About Anchor Babies: Donald Trump's Latest Fight

RUSH: I never want to sound like one of those off-putting, arrogant, condescending know-it-alls, but I don't know how I can avoid it here. This argument over the 14th Amendment and anchor babies is one of the greatest illustrations how even some of the brightest people in this country do not understand the Constitution. There's nothing in the 14th Amendment about anchor babies. (interruption) You think there is? You do or don't? (interruption) There's nothing in the 14th Amendment that says if you are born to a mother who is a citizen that you're automatically a citizen. It isn't there. Even some of our presidential candidates think that it is.

The Constitution is very clear: Congress has sole discretion over defining who is and who isn't a citizen and how you become one. It's not the 14th Amendment. There's a Breitbart story: "Trump, Reporter Spar Over Term 'Anchor Baby.'" And then there's a Los Angeles Times story: "Jeb Bush Says 'Anchor Babies,' Hillary Clinton Responds on Social Media." Everybody's upset over the term, as though it's some sort of PC, political correctness violation or something, "anchor babies."

I don't know, folks, it's irrelevant. The Constitution says nothing about anchor babies. The 14th Amendment says nothing about birthright citizenship. And look at all the people who think that it does. The Constitution says Congress has complete control over who is and who is not a US citizen. And, by the way, here's a little shocker for you. Even the Supreme Court, back when it used to makes sense, the Supreme Court has never ruled that a baby born to illegal aliens in the US is automatically a citizen. Did you know that? And look at how many people just automatically accept that as the case.

I mean, this came up last night on Hannity. Brother Levin, Mark Levin, who is a constitutional expert, you want to talk about exasperation, here's somebody who thinks it's simple to understand the Constitution. Just read it. It's written in plain English, and it's not hard to understand it whatsoever. The14th Amendment does not require birthright citizenship. It doesn't mention it. Trump is right about it, and the media is arguing with him. That's why the Breitbart story: "Trump, Reporter Spar Over Term 'Anchor Baby.'"

Let's grab those bites real quickly. Number 16 we'll start. CNN special report, Donald Trump interview, Chris Cuomo. He's a guy who thinks he knows a lot more than he does, and those kind of people are dangerous. They're talking about immigration. Cuomo says, "People in the GOP are worried that you're gonna alienate, excuse the pun, the Hispanic population, when you have 28 million voters, pulling the birthright exception that maybe constitutionally dubious, you shouldn't be taking such an extreme position. What do you say about that?"

TRUMP: At some point we have to be honest with ourselves. It's called -- now they like to use the word "undocumented" because it's more political. I don't use that word. They're illegal immigrants. They came over illegally. Some are wonderful people and they've been here for a while. They gotta go out. (sic)

CUOMO: But how do you do it in a practical way? You really think you can round up 11 million people?

TRUMP: You know what? At some point we're gonna try getting back the good ones. You have a lot of good ones.

CUOMO: You send a mixed message though, Mr. Trump, because you're gonna get rid of whole families, but then you say you want them back.

TRUMP: You gotta go. They're illegal. We have a country, we have to have a border.

RUSH: Don't forget the story we found yesterday. I shared with you from 2008 an AP story about how Mexican legislators, the equivalent of our state senators, sent a delegation to Arizona demanding that we stop sending illegal immigrants back. They didn't want them. They came here to threaten us. They didn't want the people back in Mexico that are, quote, unquote, immigrating here illegally. Again, it's not immigration, folks. This is another one of these things, we're going to have to change terms if it takes redundancy, sorry, to change terms. But we're not talking about immigration, we really are not.

We're up now to 11 million or 15 or 20 million people, whatever it is over whatever length of time, this is not immigration. By definition it isn't because they're illegal. They are not immigrants. They have not immigrated. They have invaded. It's that simple. We're never gonna get to the bottom of this really if we don't define the terms. But that's a side light issue. Trump and his effort here to explain why we need to deport. "We'll get the good ones back. But they gotta go." They can come back here legally. And Cuomo said, "So the citizenship for those babies, you would revoke it now, retroactively?"

TRUMP: Number one, the 14th Amendment is very questionable as to whether or not somebody can come over, have a baby and immediately that baby is a citizen.

CUOMO: I know the court has pretty much said that it reads in immigrants here. This is a minority legal opinion you're talking about.

TRUMP: Amending is too big a deal. It would be two terms. I'd be in my second term on my eighth year by the time assuming everything went smoothly because to ammend the Constitution --

RUSH: Again, it's a shame. It really is a shame that the truth is perceived as an extreme position. Listen here to Chris Cuomo, "I know the courts pretty much said and agreed that it reads in immigrants here. It's a minority legal opinion you're talking about, minority legal opinion." The 14th Amendment says nothing about birthright citizenship. It just doesn't. As I say, Brother Levin made the point exquisitely last night. They want the Constitution to say that. They want people to believe the Constitution says that if you are born to on a illegal alien mother, that you are automatically an American citizen. They want to insist that that's what the Constitution says, but it doesn't. And again a reminder, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens.

The Supreme Court has only granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, not illegal. Who in their right mind ever thought that the birth of a child to an illegal immigrant converted to citizenship? A lot of people believe it. It's not in the 14th Amendment. You know where it is? It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4.

Here's what it says: "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." You know what that means. That means Congress decides who becomes a citizen and how. To automatically say the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship, no, we can't change that. Amending the Constitution, not possible, takes too long. We gotta find another way of dealing with this. No, we don't, because it's not there. You don't have to amend the Constitution.

Now, the 14 Amendment excludes Indians, i.e., Native Americans as US citizens because it was felt they had allegiance to their own national tribes and so forth, but there's nothing in it, and yet it's a matter of debate? The interesting thing is how it got started and how long ago and how deeply believed and embedded in our society it is. I mean, I can imagine that many of you hearing me say this think I have to be wrong. Maybe, you know, I'm well-intentioned and you know I'm not lying to you, but maybe I'm wrong because everybody knows that if you're born in America, you are a citizen. No, you're not.

Now, clearly the invaders think so. It's one of the reasons they're coming. They come pregnant, they give birth, they think automatically there is citizenship involved. So that's one thing to straighten out. And as I say, the truth here happens to be perceived by a lot of people as the extreme position when all it is is a literal interpretation of the Constitution, which to a lot of people, the Second Amendment is an extreme position.

In light of that, try this. This is from the Washington Free Beacon. "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been releasing illegal immigrants with violent criminal records back into local US communities, where they have often gone on to commit violent crimes against American citizens, according to new disclosures by a leading lawmaker and local law enforcement agencies. Rep. Matt Salmon (R., Ariz.) and law enforcement officials petitioned the Obama administration on Wednesday to end a policy that enables illegal immigrants with criminal records to be released back into the United States."

This is all happening from the Regime, this is Obama doing this, and if I didn't know better I would say it's almost as if Obama is working for the Trump campaign, just handing him this immigration issue each and every day and in the process undermining Hillary.

"Arizona law enforcement officials announced on Tuesday that three illegal aliens with violent criminal records had been released by DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) back onto the streets, where they went on to commit crimes including kidnapping and murdering an infant. The ongoing release of criminals from countries such as Iraq, Sudan, and Russia prompted Salmon to petition DHS 'to stop freeing violent criminals who are in our country illegally.'"

And here's a pull quote from the story. "Despite the repeated attacks on American citizens by illegal aliens released from our jails, DHS refuses to stop freeing violent criminals who are in our country illegally." That is a quote from Matt Salmon in his letter to the Department of Homeland Security. Why would you do this? Prison overcrowding? Is that the excuse? You know, we're releasing hardened criminals from jails all over California. They don't have the money. They don't have the room anymore. The jails are overflowing so we gotta get rid of somebody. This is an excuse being used all over the country, particularly in the Southwest and the far western states.

Why would you do this? Under what rubric of common sense would you release violent criminals who are illegal back onto the streets in America? Why would you not deport them? I mean, you have them. It's not like you have to go to the shadows and find these people. They are in your jail cell. They're in your prison cell. Why would you release them into the general population? (interruption) Obama doesn't want to be called the deporter-in-chief. No, no, no. That doesn't answer the question.

Maybe the question needs to asked, why would you want to release hardened criminal illegals back into the streets of American cities? Why would you do that? Maybe the question, not why wouldn't you deport them. Why would you do that? Why would you release them, number one. Number two, why release them back onto the streets of America when they are not here legally? The answer to those questions is not pleasant. What could the answers be? You must want that circumstance. Don't tell me that there aren't any other options. "Well, we can't deport them, Rush, Obama doesn't want to be called a deporter-in-chief."

That's not a reason. It's going on for some reason. Somebody has reason. Is it to curry favor with Hispanics? So this is how you do it? In order to get the Hispanic vote, you let their violent criminals out of jail? That's how you get their vote? Is that what's going on? I don't know. Somebody has to tell me.

RUSH: You see how Hillary Clinton tried to jump on Jeb Bush for talking about "anchor babies"? Hillary tweeted, "They aren't called 'anchor babies.' They're called 'babies,'" which is a bit ironic given that Hillary's a big supporter of Planned Parenthood where "babies" are called "tissue mass" and, what, "unviable cells"? Whatever it is. Are you kidding me? All of a sudden now they're "babies" to Hillary Clinton of Planned Parenthood fame? They're not anchor babies?

Now, the Drive-By Media, they're trying to outlaw the phrase "anchor babies" because it's effective. By the way, who created this? It's not as though this term is a derogatory one created by us. This term has been widely used by everybody out there. Some reporter tried to shame Donald Trump for using it, and Trump said, "Well, what am I supposed to call 'em?" I've been thinking about it, folks.

If we can't call 'em "anchor babies," what do we call them? Anchor Democrats? 'Cause that's how the Democrats are looking at them all. Or if you're a member of the Republican elite, Chamber of Commerce, "anchor cheap labor"? If they're not anchor babies, I don't know what to call them. This is just... It's amazing to see all of this explode the way it is. And it's creating all this talk about immigration, illegal immigration. For the first time it's out there, folks. It's out there on our terms.

It's being discussed in ways the Republican Party never would. It's being discussed in ways the Democrat Party never would. Because in the case of immigration, there has never been a majority for any of the proposals put forth by either party -- executive amnesty or whatever other plan there is -- to essentially legalize them and make them voters. There is not the majority support for any plan that either party has put forward. It is a gigantic issue.

It's a gigantic issue for a lot of people in this country because the issue itself, the whole subject contains elements of what many people think is going wrong in this country, not just immigration, but all of the resulting impacts. Like I said yesterday, imagine this country without the 20 million illegals that are here. Imagine the state of California. And this is not... It's nothing more than an exercise. It's nothing more than a little game to play with yourself. Because it's instructive.

And you can readily conclude the vast difference -- economic, cultural, you name it. The state of California would not be lost to the Republicans; it would still be in play. The state of California would not have become the state that it is. You know, California is many things, and it is a harbinger of what this country will become if this kind of thing isn't stopped. You're gonna have a very rich, very powerful minority of elites -- very, very tiny -- and they're gonna live in a very few, small, gated enclaves.

Everybody else is gonna have no upward mobility whatsoever, because the opportunities are gonna have been choked off.

RUSH: You know, we sit here, the world's lone superpower, the greatest nation in the history of nations, the most phenomenal country ever on the face of the earth, the greatest standard of living, a structured government and population based on freedom and liberty of the individual that exists nowhere else and never has. And, as such, we have borders.

Now, obviously since we are special and unique, and if you want to use the word "exceptional," feel free, it's quite understandable, human nature, a lot of people not born here would like to come on here. But why is it written, where does it say that we must allow anyone who wants to come to this country to come in and become a citizen. I mean, this is a very, very tough thing to discuss. I have told you a couple of times I witnessed a knock-down, drag-out argument over this issue between a friend of mine and a very, very well known media figure whose name I've never mentioned because it's not really the point who it is. He's just a well-known daytime TV media figure, and you can assume correctly from that that he's a bleeding heart.

At every stage of the argument, my friend led with statistics, provided evidence of what is happening, the negative impact of all of this. And the famous daytime TV personality could not answer any of it, could not refute any of it, and didn't care. He finally got so frustrated, he said, "Look, I don't care about any of that. If somebody, if some poor person wants to come to my country because they want to improve themselves and better themselves, then I don't have the right to tell them they can't come, and neither do you."

And there you have it. We don't have the right to tell less fortunate disadvantaged people that they can't come here and get what we have. You see, that's all predicated on the fact that what we have is simply luck and it isn't fair that the rest of the world doesn't have it. The rest of the world could have it. Human civilization has been around however many number of years you want to add up.

We've been around less than 250 years, and in less than 250 years we have created what is the greatest country on earth. There are reasons for it. And any other country on earth could do the same thing. They could structure it the same way, and if they don't have natural resources they could economically structure a way to barter, share, buy, trade, you name it. They could do the same thing.

Instead, most of the nations around the world are led by tyrants and dictators and thugs who are leading their countries for one reason. Well, two. They have this megalomaniacal desire to control people, and the second reason, it may even be the first reason, is to get rich, is to basically steal as much money circulating in the country as they can. They assemble powerful armies to keep themselves in power and to make sure that anybody who doesn't like it is dealt with.

We've never had that here. Quite the opposite. And yet there are people who think that it's not fair. Phil Donahue. Remember this story? I watched Phil Donahue on his own show one day practically start crying over what he called the accident of his birth. Yeah, he said if I'd have just been born 50 miles south, I would be a Third World citizen mired in a mud hut in poverty. And he couldn't get past the guilt of that, that there was nothing special about him. He just happened to be where he was born, that isn't fair to anybody else, so who are we to tell people they can't come here?

And of course it's the wrong answer. The wrong answer is the rest of the world needs to be fixed, improved, straightened out, 'cause it can happen. All they have to do is overcome liberalism around the world. All they have to do is overcome socialism. I mean, it's tough, it'd be challenging to do, but the answer is very simple. Our way of life, our government defines the way this country is. I mean, it's not luck. We're not the winners of life's lottery here, because within our own borders are people living lives of misery, particularly those names that have been released from the Ashley Madison hack.

Not everybody here is rich. Not everybody here is independently wealthy. Not everybody here is free from any kind of economic concern. We run the gamut here, too. It's the opportunity to escape that that exists here, for very specific reasons. But it's not because the US is where it is. It's not because our DNA is different than anybody else's. It's because of the way we have structured our affairs, our government.

I'm getting off the beaten path a bit here, but the point is that there are so many like this famous TV personality who just can't deal with the fact that there are other people that do not either have what we have or don't have the opportunity to get it. "How can we sit here and have access to all this? It's not fair. If they want to come, they've gotta come. I couldn't tell 'em no. I couldn't live with myself if I told 'em 'no.'" And that's, unfortunately, the attitude of many ordinary Americans. They make themselves feel better by saying what the famous daytime TV idiot says. But it leads to absolute calamity and disaster, as we are seeing.

RUSH: Ben Carson, Dr. Ben Carson, number two now in many presidential polls on the Republican side, is visiting the US-Mexico border, and he continued yesterday. He was in Cochise County, Arizona, and he looked at the fence. He said (summarized), "You know what? This isn't gonna do it. The fence that we have here is not cutting it. This is small impediment." Dr. Carson said, "That fence is not gonna keep anybody out." He said that he favors armed drones patrolling the border. Right on, Dude! Dan you imagine armed drones patrolling the border? We are moving this conversation, folks. This conversation is taking a trip to places it hasn't been in a while.

Apparently, the decision to declare “anchor babies” as possessing US citizenship by accident of geography at time of birth is purely bureaucratic in nature, as there is no supporting legislation that defines this as an accomplished fact, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the validity of this interpretation.

Of course, I would not count on the Supreme Court as it is presently constituted to make an unbiased determination.

Do the math? You’re here 42 days noobie, that’s the math I have.
_______

Cuff me now, Sheriff. Guilty as charged. lol

_______

Or are you trying to claim Marco Rubio was a Anchor Baby? For your information his parents did not come illegally from Cuba
_______

That’s not what Jeb said! lol

“The 14th Amendment says nothing about birthright citizenship”

Correct!

“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.”

What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2139082/posts

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

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.