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 ...
Generally like Napolitano but...he’s totally wrong.
There’s only one court decision that helps him: Wong Kim Ark in 1898. And it really doesn’t apply.
And we don’t even need an amendment to clarify the 14th. Just a law. Been about 10 attempts to do it, either a Bush or a Clinton or an Odingo squelched it. They’re all against us.
Won’t be long now. Trump can win on this clear statement alone. The screaming and wailing from the Invader groupies will be loud and long, but the game will be over...for them.
..... Amend the 14th Amendment to state ... born by Citizen or Naturalized parents. The anchor baby rule should cease.
True. But hasn't the usurping kenyan/indonesian commie infesting the white hut declared The Constitution "Null and Void"?
Who says they need to be deported. All Trump needs to do is simply DECLARE that anyone found in this country illegally will NEVER be allowed to come back. So when we find anchor families, Mom and/or Dad (whichever are illegal) are sent home, never to see their American kids again in this country.
Of course the other option for these families would be to leave (with or without their kids) BEFORE Trump takes office and then apply for expedited return on work visas.
I suspect most will take Option 2. And there ain’t a damn thing a court can do to stop it, since Trump still wouldn’t even be in office as they leave...it is only HIS WORDS making it clear to them that their best option is to quickly get to Mexico City to apply for (legal) admission to this country.
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
Hosepipe’s giving out hummers. Everyone line up.
Quick, somebody call Laz ....
He doesn’t seem to know about Summary Deportations - been the law since 1996. We can deport enmass ...
Non-citizen, @$#% spell check! Gotta wonder why my spell-check hates that one so much.
What about “Operation Wetback” in the 1950’s?
Obama’s election is forbidden by the Constitution. He is not a natural born citizen — he may not even have been born in this country! There is no Constitution anymore. We need someone to restore it even if the person doing the restoring is not a natural born citizen either.
I coach a “We the People” Constitutional Law team...well, assistant coach, anyway. I looked at this very issue last night. The specific issue of automatically conferring citizenship by birth on U.S. soil has only been decided in instances of people who are LAWFULLY within the United States. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship of people who are here illegally. It has been assumed by many that is the case, but there is no Supreme Court decision on point.
Or so say my sources.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Original intent of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“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.”
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
“[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word...”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
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;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. 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. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
If everything in that plan was done though, the “self-deportation” could start happening. If they can’t get jobs and welfare.
There is no such thing as “birthright citizenship”.
Aliens are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the states they live in.
The Amendment refers to freed slaves.
But we live in Obamaland where the Constitution is a bitch and the American left fully intends to **** it like one.
They’re crapping on you America because you’re laying there letting them.
I’m not sure why you have to DEPORT anyone.
Just make E-Verify mandatory for every company.
If or your company is caught employing an illegal alien,
1. The first time it’s $500 per alien.
2. The second time it’s $50,000 per alien.
3. The third time a mandatory 5 years in prison.
If they can’t work, they’ll self-DEPORT.
You might even have a bounty for whistleblowers turning in employers. They do it for tax cheats, or companies using bootleg software, why not illegal alien employers?
Then I guess Trump will have to come up with something terrific
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
Article IV, Section 4
And from Jacob Howard, co-author or the 14th Amendment:
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] 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 UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
Repeal the 14th
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3325800/posts?page=8#8
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.