Posted on 08/17/2015 1:46:45 PM PDT by BradtotheBone
Donald Trump laid out some details of his immigration plan in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" this weekend.
Trump, who has been criticized in recent weeks for failing to give particulars on his immigration promises, said he will rescind President Obama's executive orders and end birthright citizenship.
As part of it, Trump said he wants to rescind President Obama's executive orders on immigration; deport many of those in the U.S. illegally while providing an expedited return process for "the good ones;" and do away with automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.
The Trump campaign said the policy, known as birthright citizenship, is the "biggest magnet" for illegal immigration.
"They have to go," Trump said on NBC's "Meet the Press," of families living in the U.S. illegally and having a child, adding: "What they're doing, they're having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows ... the baby's here."
Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning on "America's Newsroom" what Trump can and cannot do on immigration. He said that Trump's promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is "prohibited by the Constitution."
"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.
He added that any president can rescind an executive order of a predecessor. But the judge pointed out that every undocumented immigrant that Trump intends to deport would be entitled to a hearing and an appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...
III%
I don't think I'm the one looking bad.
I don't think so.
Well you at least have to try and the Congress needs to re-write some of the immigration laws to allow fast track deports. The big deal is stop them from coming. Stop the flow. Threaten to send them back and half of them will go on their own. That’s what happened in AZ. When we passed our immigration law in GA they hightailed it out of here in droves.
Good point; Trump can afford the lawyers and media experts (if he is serious) to defend the original intent of the 14th amendment...and if he stays high in the polls, then his spokespeople will get more play.
The left really really would hate for there to be a debate focused on the ISSUES, as opposed to the PERSONALITIES.
The personalities can be manipulated by the media to make Mother Teresa look like a villain. On the other hand, a crook like Hillary or a fascist like Obama is made to look “historic”.
When it comes to the ISSUES, however, the left loses consistently. Their positions are untenable.
Where?
The hits just keep on coming.
“Is there some special standard now being set up for Trump, where he can only propose actions that he as the president can effect by himself?”
That isn’t what I said. However, to present that proposal as something that will occur with little more than a wave of a wand is a bit misleading, is it not?
So...what makes his opinion better than Judge Napolitano’s?
“So would the 14th Amendment.”
Or at least amended.
The judge is correct.
“Hightailed it out of here in droves.”
Not that I disagree we you, but they’re back, in force.
Well I love Judge Nap but he is quoting strict law. There are many ways to get around laws as Obama has so aptly shown us.
Trump hasn’t presented his proposals any more as done by the wave of the wand than any other presidential candidate.
Jeesh!!!
Well we didn’t get rid of all of them but we did get rid of a lot of them. At one point illegals would be just walking along the roadside of the main drags and down the streets of our neighborhood looking in everyone’s garage. It was terrible. It would be so great to start rounding them up and shipping them back.
Maybe the co author of the 14th? Like I said, educate yourself:
And from Jacob Howard, co-author or the 14th Amendment:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127. The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
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 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, 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.[1]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3325800/posts?page=59#59
Not if you go by the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3325800/posts?page=59#59
-— By this reasoning a child born in Cancun while the parents are on vaction is a Mexican citizen? -—
Right. It defies common sense.
Then maybe he should have included that in the amendment?
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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.
In other words people not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Those with diplomatic immunity, for if Jacob Howard meant that the children of those who were not citizens were not citizens at birth, then none of the children of immigrants, legal or illegal, would be citizens. And if those children never became naturalized citizens then their children would not be citizens and on and on for generations.
Birthright citizenship for the children of persons in the Country ILLEGALLY was a judicial misinterpretation of Article 14 in the 1889 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case:
“The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents.”
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
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.