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 ...
I smell the fear of all the justices (who were all undoubtedly leftist from the 1860’s until now) as they knew that undoubtedly people came to the U.S. illegally even back then.
But they wanted nonetheless to stamp their leftist agenda even in the mid 19th century. /s.
You keep referring to yourself as a republican. So why are you so hot to have the little Mexican whelps be recognized as US citizens. I don’t get it. Can’t you see the flood that is destroying this country? They are people without the slightest loyalty to anything recognized as American.
Why are you fighting so hard for them? Is it cultural? Or do you own a business that likes cheap labor?
Pretty interesting that people here at FR go to liberal CNN to look at their polls (and crow about them afterwards in jubilation) and dump then on all the other GOP candidates that aren’t Trump.
So you get to decide who is and isn’t a U.S. citizen?
How so?
Discover a woman’s intent for coming here illegally? How would you go about doing this?
Just declare by fiat that all people who came here illegally and had a child afterwards, their child will as of a future date no longer be a U.S. citizen - IOW, retroactively nullify their citizenship at some point even if they are a 1 year old, 5 years old, 10 year old child?
And what about the women who came here illegally and then got pregnant sometime afterwards? Will their children be stripped of U.S. citizenship?
How do you determine they came here for one reason - to have an anchor baby?
Will you just say that they never were citizens in the first place by fiat?
You are ignoring the plain language of the 14th amendment much like the gun grabbers ignore the plain language of the 2nd amendment. If children born of immigrants are not citizens of the United States who is? What is your criteria?
They should be stripped and sent back home. To be fair, I think they should be first in line at the embassy to apply for a green card. If they were decent people when they lived here, they should be on a fast track for residency.
If not, stay away.
No, it means that if there is a decision on a matter that you don’t like, you get to decide what is a bad interpretation and what is a good one!
So we throw out all precedent from the 1860’s until now on the 14th amendment?
“And subject to the jurisdiction of”.
If the intent was as you say, they could have simply said anyone born inside our borders is a citizen. And this also takes us to the ludicrous conclusion that the child of a diplomat born here isn’t a citizen, but the child of an illegal is.
Silliness.
If we abolish anchor babies then, NO.
"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?"
Whether she knows she is pregnant doesn't matter a bit. If she isn't a citizen or permanent resident, no citizenship for baby.
"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?"
We used to routinely deport people (common example: mafia members) who had falsely lived as citizen for decades once it was determined they were not actually citizens.
It’s quite evident that you don’t know the meaning of ad hominem. I made no personal attacks on you.
So does Mark Levin, then:
These classes of people, even if born here, are NOT American citizens under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952:
a child born on American soil to a:
(1) foreign ambassador,
(2) head of state,
(3) foreign military prisoner
So what prevents Congress from simply adding another class of people to the list?
After all he's the Producer of The Rachel Maddow Show - where the truth and the whole truth have always been banned.
B$ before the total welfare state, no one gave a cr@p. You came you worked or you did not eat, so you became an American because you wanted to.
Code for "How to destroy the Constitution" without even trying.
I’m a Cruz supporter and no Trump fan, but as you pointed out, the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is key, and gives Trump and Constitutional scholars plenty of leg to stand on.
Bingo
I refuse to entertain "constitutional" arguments from someone before they publicly acknowledge the supremacy of the Constitution.
Similarly, I won't entertain biblical arguments from someone who doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Bible.
If both parties in a debate don't look to the document as a trustworthy source of authority, it will be used as a weapon by the side that doesn't and a worthless tool by the one that does.
Believe me, I am not arguing FOR the “oh look. We crossed the border ... give birth now!! I do NOT think it should be that way at all.
I am just saying that the Constitution is utterly clear. If the 2nd Amendment is clear, a fortioi the 14th is.
A better question is where is the GOP or the DNC on this? Name a position of any of the other 16 on this issue.
You would rather pick on a statement by Trump that has not been put in legalistic nonsense terms so as to confuse the whole issue, so you can add your own confused statements to the debate.
The fight that never begins takes even longer.
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.