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 ...
Exactly.
One thing at a time.
Too many irons in the fire runs the whole thing.
But some here say that Congress can fix the problem, as Mark Levin apparently says, but where is Trump in calling on Congress to do this?
It seems to be the motto with some here that if Trump says something, whatever he may say, then some believe just it.
Nonsense we didn't even keep records until after the depression. When I was born a simple notation in a family Bible was enough to determine citizenship. I Never saw a my birth certificate until I was an adult and learned that my name was different than the one I was using. The local Doctor that delivered me at home simply made several mistakes when filling out the paperwork.
“So, once again, what is the cut off date?
There will have to be a cut-off date.”
The instant she steps across the border. Anything she whelps after that is an instant Mexican and must go home. And im generous. Ill pay for the ride and give em 50 bucks for food.
But they have to vamoose,,,,
Waaaah. Waaaaah.
Enough of your Ad Hominem.
The writer of the article apparently wants to know who those lawyers are?
Are like an unnamed source to a WaPo or NYT article?
The primary point to my post is the use of inflammatory headlines intended to mislead.
Who cares what her motivation is? All I said was that the 14th amendment was created for slaves that have no jurisdiction to (or from) another country. Even American Indians that were given their own nation weren't subject to the 14th amendment. The case law isn't clear, it goes both ways: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/constitution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/
I know, leftists are just around every corner wanting to do this or that - and since the Civil war until now, too! And apparently, all court renderings on what the 14th Amendment means have been slanted by leftists who seem to be almost Omnipotent in their control of the courts since the Civil War. /s.
translation: He is eminently qualified to be nominated for the Supreme Court.
"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."
They always leave out that part.
One of the most fundamental rules of construction: words are there for a reason. If your interpretation of a law is not affected by deleting an entire qualifying provision then your interpretation is wrong.
Ann Coulter?
I thought that she was a RINO, according to what many here have said.
And does anyone think that people have never stepped foot in the U.S. illegally and had a baby afterwards for the last 150 years?
Look, I don’t like the idea of anchor babies, either, but where do you inoke a cut-off date?
If a woman comes into the U.S. illegally, then gets pregnant, and then has the baby her in the U.S., is her child an American citizen?
If she came to the U.S. and did not know she was pregnant and has a child, how do you prove she didn’t know if you believe that she is lying?
If she came into the U.S. to have a child, and admits this, and this isn’t discovered until years afterwards, do you deport the child - an American citizen?
“And what if an illegal gets pregnant after coming here?”
If the father is another illegal, then they made a little Mexican. If the father is an American citizen, its a little US citizen and the baby can stay when the mom gets deported.
But I’m old fashioned, I think families should stay together. Mom, baby, and the father should all go live where mom gets deported to.
Birthright Citizenship is not in the Constitution. Babies born who are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, who are born to foreign parents subject to foreign governments are not granted citizenship by the Constitution. Witness Diplomats’ children born in the USA are not American citizens. Birthright Citizenship was “granted” by an 1898 USSC decision which itself is Unconstitutional as Congress is expressly granted plenary jurisdiction on citizenship. “Plenary” means the Court has no say, only Congress.
One time and not “upheld” but rather invented on the spot with NO Constitutional authority.
“That scripture concerns all sins or crimes in that no child is held responsible for their father’s or mother’s actions.”
That refers to the moral code outlined in the Scriptures, not U.S. immigration laws.
Moses wrote laws regarding citizenship. You mentioned how long; Moses mandated generations of residency before “foreigners” could become citizens, sometimes ten generations, and for one particular group, not ever.
“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?”
True, but it has not involved an invasion, which is what is going on. Franklin Roosevelt had illegals removed; Eisenhower has hundreds of thousands removed.
“Has it been all leftists in control of the courts around the U.S. since the Civil War until now?”
You need to let that go; it is meaningless. The immigrant invasion going on does not date back to the Civil War.
He did question the leftist interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Its all an elaborate trick. Because he is really a leftist. Once he becomes President he will enact amnesty.
I better not forget the /s thingy at the end.
Was enjoying reading this thread but your post was too perfect. Don’t need to read on. You nailed it. Jellyfish into a wood chipper. Excellent and agreed.
The son shall not suffer for the mother stealing a bank account. Lines up with Ezekiel 18:20.
So if the country decides immigration policy, that would only be for here right now going forwards, and not a retroactive policy.
And thus, one could not strip anyone of their citizenship even if their mother came here illegally. And how could one even find out what her intent was if the goal is to deny an “anchor baby” of citizenship? Regardless, her child could not be deported.
If she got pregnant after she came to the U.S. illegally and then had the child in the U.S., her child would undoubtedly be an American citizen. Would you deport that child? How would you find out it was her goal to have an anchor baby?
14th Amendment and Article 1. The USSC is not God and has no jurisdiction in this matter. Constitution grants PLENARY, i.e. TOTAL jurisdiction for defining naturalization and birthright. The 14 excluded Indians who were born within the USA but whose jurisdiction was to a foreign nation due to the status of tribes as nations having treaties with the United States. That pretty much says that children born to citizens of foreign countries are NOT CITIZENS.
When you can't tell the whole truth and still be relevant, then your whole story is a lie - and they know it but have had so much success with lies that they will continue.
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.