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 ...
No, he doesn’t. Count on PMSNBC for a perverted headline.
So it has been all leftoids since the Civil War rendering their verdicts 9even in the courts) concerning the 14th Amendment?
Who even argues that leftists have controlled the courts or even the nation since the 1860’s until now?
Trump has said nothing about stripping citizenship. I agree it is a long-shot to stop future anchor babies. It will take a lot of education and more than likely a much more constitutionally conservative SCOTUS. I believe Trump has the correct interuptation of the 14a. I hope he arrived at his position by talking/learning from legal advisors and not just a populous 'feeling' that anchor babies should not be citizens.
“So it has been all leftists who have interpreted the constitution and the 14th amendment since the Civil War? LOL. ROTFL. That’s a good one.”
No. I think the first challenge to that was a Supreme Court decision in 1898, which is a generation removed from the Civil War. The Supreme Court ignored language of the amendment.
Stare Decisis is utter crap and a non-thinker’s escape from bad interpretation of clear law.
The words have meaning. Precedent does not. It means someone screwed up due to lack of education.
When US sheriffs are forced to stand on our side of the border watching Mexican women in the last moments of labor being rolled across the border into America because she can no longer walk, all the while the pregnant female and her helpers all laughing in scorn at the helpless lawmen, who then have to place the female in an ambulance and rush her to an American hospital to have her baby on US soil, how can you suggest she didn’t intentionally come here to have her anchor baby ???
“How does one determine the mother’s intent?”
The mother’s intent has no bearing on immigration laws. The Constitution mandates that for Congress.
If the courts have not rendered the verdict that you think they should have render since the Civil War on this matter, and there obviously have been illegals coming into the US and having babies here afterwards since then, why should it be changed now?
To suit you?
Were they all leftists that controlled the courts since the Civil War until now?
And what if an illegal gets pregnant after coming here?
You can’t argue that she came here to get pregnant to have an American citizen, can you?
How do you determine her motivation?
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
***And SUBJECT to the jurisdiction thereof***
That does not include a Mexican who sneaks in. Show me a single source that this was the intent of the Amendment.
For extra fun, explain to me why you lose citizenship if you were fraudulent at any part of the process. But that your illegal and fraudulent arrival is just fine.
Your argument makes no sense, think it all the way through. Sorry but any other argument is people more loyal to their ethnicity than to the nation.
So the children born of illegal immigrants get to 1.) stay and 2.) keep their citizenship?
If you don’t want them to 1.) stay, but do want them to 2.) keep their citizenship, do you then deport an American citizen?
If so, what is the cut-off age for those US citizens (born to an illegal) that would then be deported? Those 18 and under? 10 and under? 5 and under?
The Court has never ruled to the specific issue, how can there be precedent?
“And what if an illegal gets pregnant after coming here?
You can’t argue that she came here to get pregnant to have an American citizen, can you?
How do you determine her motivation?”
According to the 14th amendment, the baby would not be a citizen. Her motivation does not make her or it a citizen. Can you not understand that? It is the laws of the land that determine citizenship, not the motivation, decisions, desires of a trespasser.
That scripture concerns all sins or crimes in that no child is held responsible for their father’s or mother’s actions.
So you can read into the minds of the Founders and can see all of their intents?
Given that, sadly, illegal immigration is not a new thing, and is probably age-old, what then of all the verdicts by the courts since the Civil War on this issue?
Has it been all leftists in control of the courts around the U.S. since the Civil War until now?
“Neither I nor any conservative/Republican likes “anchor babies” one bit, but what is the cut-off?”
If you came here legally. That’s the cut off. If someone breaks into your house, how long till they get to stay for dinner? A day, a week? LOL
And as to moms intent, guess what? You no longer have to discern that if you follow the law. You merely need to determine whether or not the mom was legal.
Advocate for the Mexicans somewhere else.
Future law: if both parents are illegal aliens or non-citizens, then the child must legally naturalize. If one parent is a citizen, then the child is a citizen.
So is Trump calling on Congress to do what Mark Levin says they can do?
I don’t see it.
Perhaps this is what Trump should do, then?
No citizenship to children of people who are not planing to stay here and become citizens.
It is not that hard.
Children get the citizenship of their parents. If they (the parents) change their minds and decide to stay and become citizens the whole family can nationalize.
Love these leftists. When they need it, they quote the Old Testament and wrap themselves in the constitution. Super funny.
Wonder if he is suddenly a Leviticus reader too and thinks homosexuality is a sin?
And there it is. Just wanted to make sure I didn’t repeat someone. Thx!
I do not have a link, but I suspect that some of that material is available on the net.
I have a brief note on the subject in the last Chapter of my Debate Handbook. For the online version of the last Chapter of the Handbook, try Chapter Last.
Lawrence, as I, believed it a disgrace that the Courts had never recognized the problem with the Fourteenth Amendment. (There is, also, one other remedy to interpretations of the Amendment, in that Congress does have the power to define how it will be enforced.)
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.