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.