Posted on 08/19/2015 7:31:05 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
A few days ago, Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump unveiled an actual immigration policy, which included a striking provision: "End birthright citizenship."
As regular readers know, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution doesn't leave much in the way of wiggle room: the rights of American citizenship are given to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." The principle of birthright citizenship has been upheld by the Supreme Court many times since its enactment following the Civil War.
If the Constitution says those born in the United states are citizens of the United States, what exactly does Trump intend to do about it?
Under the 14th Amendment [Fox News Bill O'Reilly] told Trump on "The O'Reilly Factor," "mass deportations of so-called birthright citizens cannot happen. Trump disagreed, and said that "many lawyers are saying that's not the way it is in terms of this."
Indeed, many assumed that Trump envisions a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. He does not. What Trump actually has in mind is a court fight in which he and his lawyers challenge the legality of constitutional language.
There's an apparent contradiction at the heart of Trump's immigration plan: he says he'd never break up a family, but he also says literally every undocumented immigrant must be rounded up and deported. Since some undocumented parents have US-born children, those tenets are in conflict: a Trump administration would either separate children from their families or it would end up deporting American citizens.
Trump could try to push for a constitutional change, but he'd rather prefer a shortcut. "It's not a long process, and I think it would take too long," he said last night. "I'd much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don't think they are." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
Im evangelical. If you are illegal get out of my country.
The dude is probably just a La Raza troll.
What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2139082/posts
MORE:
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
“IOW, Stare Decisis”
Wasn’t there a time when Dred Scott was stare decisis?
“why should it be changed now? To suit you?”
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
If changing it suits enough people that the amendment is ratified, then yes: to suit him, and everyone else that wants it.
It is rich that you post MSNBC as an authoritative sources on this issue.
Mark Levin had a lot to say about this and it directly counters this butt boy’s words.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326368/posts
The idiots just keep crawling out of their cockroach hidey holes. Trump has them all a flutter.
MSNBC is in freak out mode - why? If Trump is bad for the GOP they should be loving it but they seem freaked out by it.
They know.
It’s over for Hillary.
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
Another recent article on why your key source from MSNBC is wrong:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326031/posts
Two things, first off that headline is a disgrace, he did not say that.
As far as the 14th amendment goes, there was no illegal immigration in the 1860s, there was no law about it. So, it was not addressed. The writers did wish to address what happens to the children of foreign ministers and the like who happened to be here and stated they did NOT have citizenship because they were under a foreign government’s control.
If one feels it is moot, than why was a separate law later passed giving native americans citizenship status at birth?
Ask that question to a lib and watch their heads explode.
Another look at Mark Levin’s words that counter your MSNBC Butt Boy:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326706/posts
So, do you need formal training in what the Constitution says, or are you just incapable of discerning reliable sources for your views?
“How would you find out it was her goal to have an anchor baby?”
Are you actually serious with this nonsense? The mother’s intention, as I just said, has no bearing whatsoever on the citizenship status of her offspring.
The bank account scenario I mention was limited to your saying that time makes illegalities legal. Even with your money?
Again you maintain: “How would you find out it was her goal to have an anchor baby? Would you deport the child?”
Yes, unless the father was American. I would not even inquire what her goal was. How could I find out what intentions she has locked away in her mind?
Allowing her to stay here with her baby would be rewarding her for illegal behavior. It would be up to her and the FATHER of the baby to take care of the situation back where they came from. Why should the taxpayers provide for her offspring, while the father is foot loose and fancy free. If you want to do so privately, that is your option. Have at it. You are bound to already be doing that, otherwise you are a bit hypocritical — wanting taxpayers to do something that enables you to take the moral high ground and sit in judgment on everyone else.
“Ezekiel 18:20”
The citizenship requirements in the Old Testament were much more restrictive than anything you have ever encountered, as I mentioned and you ignored.
Good luck getting most Evangelicals and Catholics on board with this...
Ezekiel 18:20 “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father...”
Your shameless misuse of scripture isn’t going to convince anyone around here.
Let’s go ahead and take your absurd interpretation of Ezekiel 18:20, to its logical conclusion. By your reasoning, if a bank robber has given some of the money he has stolen to his son, then once he has been caught, his son needs to be allowed to keep the money given to him by his father, simply because he wasn’t the one who stole it. Your opinion of Evangelicals is pretty low if you think they’re going to buy your absurd, sophist arguements.
Derp.
Oh, I feel that conservative love of Jesus coming from you and your use of putdowns.
You truly do your parents service!
The son, by accepting stolen money, becomes party to his father’s theft. But the son, if he didn’t do this, cannot be held to suffer for his parents sin.
You need to learn what hermeneutics is and an exegetical approach to scripture. LOL.
Ann Coulter? That RINO?
Puhleeze.
And you dump on MSNBC while “conservatives” here sing the praises of liberal CNN polls. Go figure.
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.