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 ...
The son either should be held accountable for his mother coming here illegally or he shouldn’t.
God would not him accountable, but you would. Says a lot...
You are the one giving us your MSNBC love.
Own up to your passions.
Jesus came and went across borders as He saw fit.
So, the OT accounts of borders is not as restrictive as you thought, as Jesus would not violate OT scriptures.
BTW, the scriptures show that God would not hold the child accountable for the parent coming here illegally, so why should you?
Do you believe Jesus would force parents to leave their child unattended in the country they were illegally birthed in? There is nothing in Scripture to support that. It is moral to make the parents take care of their own children, is it not?
Suffering for the sins of ones father is not the same as not being allowed to benefit from the sins of ones father. To allow him to stay would be to allow him to benefit from his father’s sins.
As far as ‘being held accountable’ goes, those are your words, not the Bible’s. But, accepting that it’s wrong to hold a child accountable for the sins of his parents, sending the child back to his parent’s country of origin is not equivalent to ‘holding him accountable’. Nobody is blaming the child for what his parents did. It is simply a matter of correcting a situation that resulted from an illegal act. The intention is not to punish the child, but to enforce the conditions on immigration that we as a nation have the right to hold. The child may suffer in some ways for returning to his parent’s country or he may end up actually being happier there. Who can say? The intention, certainly, isn’t to ‘make him suffer’.
A good analogy would be if I were a car dealer, and one day a guy plunks down $100,000 for a corvette. A week later the cops show up and inform you that the guy who bought the car had just robbed a bank, and the money he paid with was stolen money. They return the car to you and ask you to give them the money so it can be returned to its rightful owner. Are you being made to suffer or are you just being asked to right a wrong that you became involved with to no fault of your own. Do you have a right to keep the money just because you didn’t commit the crime?
“Jesus came and went across borders as He saw fit.”
Jesus taught to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars. Paul taught obedience to civil authorities. Paul did not contradict Jesus. Breaking and entering was not engaged in by Jesus.
I know exactly how restrictive OT scriptures about citizenship are. I’v read them.
It is what the Constitution and the Congress says about immigration, not what I think or you think about it. I’m just repeating what the Constitution says, as explained by Mark Levin in depth yesterday and last night on Hannity. I think that you should call Levin up and explain where he is wrong.
This conversation is over.
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.