Posted on 08/18/2015 12:32:33 PM PDT by jimbo123
Marco Rubio said Tuesday he does not agree with Donald Trump's call to end so-called birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, though he said some abuses should be addressed.
"I'm open to doing things that prevent people who deliberately come to the U.S. for purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment. But I'm not in favor of repealing it," Rubio told reporters before embarking on a quintessential presidential campaign tour of the Iowa State Fair.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
I did not know Rubio’s parents were not citizens until 1975. I’d think that changes everything.
Yep. This kind of clarity is good. It will help to clear the field of the usual Amnesty Idiots.
Walker is busy trying to determine which way the political winds are blowing.
Agree with that. Always tough to amend the Constitution.
I do not support Rubio.
However, I am sympathetic to refugees from Communist oppression including Cuba and Vietnam -—both groups which have been traditionally conservative in their voting patterns because they know all too well the horrors of communism.
Rubio started distancing himself from anything remotely related to the tea-party practically the moment he got elected. He was cozying up to both McCain and the big-money donors almost immediately. Even before he sided with Schumer and made those Zuckerberg-funded commercials for amnesty, cementing what a loathesome sell-out he was.
This weasel will never get a vote from me.
http://www.authentichistory.com/1865-1897/1-reconstruction/1-johnson/cwamendments.html
The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments had very specific purposes. No reasonable interpretation of the 14th would lead one to conclude that even the radical northern reconstructionists intended to make our country a nest for the cowbirds of central America and Mexico, and the rest of the world for that matter.
“I’m open to doing things that prevent people who deliberately come to the U.S. for purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment.” Marco Rubio
As long as “doing things” doesn’t require doing anything that might actually change the way things are now: the USA is one big nest for the cowbirds of the world; that is, if you can waddle across the airport/San Ysidro/Arizona border and drop your egg (at our expense), voila—it’s American.
I thought that anchor baby issue was decided by a judge more recently as an afterthought, as an “interpretation” of the 14th amendment. I think the acceptance of this is recent. It makes no sense. I’ve heard both sides. Ann Coulter in particular speaks in detail of this.
As usual we have mis information again.
He has been a disappointment. He is also not very smart if he thought throwing in with Schumer would be good for him.
The 14th Amendment says people born in the US ***AND SUBJECT TO TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF*** are citizens.
This was to make citizens of the freed slaves after the Civil War.
You could go read this for yourself - but that would be hard.
Instead I want you to take your smug, holier than glow and call me a racist.
PING
I read the transcript of a Trump interview and (IIRC) he said the anchor babies could stay, but the family members who came illegally had to go back. The decision would be made by the family if they wanted to go back as a family or leave the children/citizens here. It would be up to the family. But, bottom line, the illegals had to return to wherever they came from.
Don’t forget the most important part: Adios!
I learn something new on FR everyday. Now I am an anchor baby because my parents were legal permanent residents on a path to citizenship when I was born? God some of the idiocy on here just get's worse and worse.
If the policy exists, it will be abused, Marco.
Why are we enticing and rewarding people for breaking our laws?
I was thinking the same thing: that the 14th amendment babies should be entitled to stay ... but why?
Exactly when did we start accepting this excuse for breaking our laws?
When did judges start telling convicted criminals: “Yes, if you are sent away, it will work a hardship on your children. You are excused.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
Do you think Eisenhower instructed his law officers, “But if they have children, or a child born here, or if it’s someone who looks kinda young, 20s or 30s, sort of dreamy lookin’—let `em stay.”
Hell no. This is the sort of moral equivalism that the left has been force-feeding the country since the late `70s. Notice the article mentions the words “ethics” applied to the Border Patrol.
So again, when did this “Born in the USA? ju out of deportation/anchor baby!” nonsense start? (And don’t start that Wong Kim Ark circular argument/begging the question bull squeeze.)
Yes; I agree. According to some attorneys, they believe there is a way around the 14th Amendment citizenship issue to exclude the anchor babies. They must go back “home” along with their parents. I’m sure that if anyone can facilitate this by finding the best attorneys, it is Trump.
The 14th wasn’t written to enable people to break laws, but it’s being used to further the interests of criminals.
I’m thinking this place would be a little corner of heaven if all illegals and their spawn were no longer with us.
Trump 1-0 Rubio
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.