Posted on 08/20/2015 12:01:48 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Mediaite and Politico are running headlines for this segment claiming that Trump said the Fourteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, which is cute but unfair. What he's saying, in his own...folksy way, is that he thinks the Supremes will side with him in finding that birth right citizenship under the Constitution doesn't apply to children of illegals. What's newsy is him implying that that ruling should apply not just prospectively but retroactively ("I don't think they have American citizenship") meaning that many thousands of people - some now adults - who have lived all their lives in America would suddenly find themselves stateless.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
There is no provision in the Constitution that offers birthright citizenship if the parents are illegals. If the parents were “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they would have the right to vote automatically upon illegally crossing the border. The warped interpretation of birthright citizenship began with a footnote by liberal Justice William Brennan in the 1982 Plyler v. Doe case. This changed the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that was established by the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
In Wong Kim Ark, the Court acknowledged that Senator Lyman Trumballone of Congresss leaders for passing the Fourteenth Amendmentacknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendments Citizenship Clause would apply to children born only to parents who were not subject to any foreign powermeaning not citizens of a foreign country. Yet the Court refused to abide by that meaning of Trumballs wordsand similar speeches by other members of Congressand instead held that because Wongs parents were here legally and permanently, their son should be deemed a citizen.
In regards to Plyler v. Doe, the court denied, in a 5-4 decision, the citizenship to the children of legal immigrants. Because Justice Brennan slipped in a dissenting footnote, does not make Plyler v. Doe invalid.
It does not take a brain surgeon to understand the validity of Mark Livin’s argument. It only requires the ability to educate yourself.
It's because that's the lawand not just in this country, but in every other country. It's a good law. There's no birthright citizenship anywhere in the world, because it's unworkable. If my daddy steals a car and gives it to me, that doesn't give me a right to it, even if I didn't know it was stolen, and even if I've gotten used to it and take wonderful care of it. It's stolen property. I may be innocent, but that doesn't mean I can keep it. I don't own it.
You call it "tossed out," as if there's something wrong with these folks' home country. (Doesn't Jesus love the folks in that country too?) Sometimes your daddy gets transferred. Sometimes it's to another country. Look at it this way: If they have a house and sell it, they'll be rich folks just about anywhere south of the border.
The reason sentimentality is only for liberals is that it leads to bad consequenceslike illegal alien gangs, out-of-work American kids, vote fraud, and Press 2 for English. As the lawyers say, "Hard cases make bad law." It's not worth the destruction of America just to keep poor little Dora the Explorer in second grade.
Look at this way; Let's say a pregnant woman breaks into your home. While inside, she goes into labor and has her child. Because the child was born inside your home, within your jurisdiction, that child is now a full-fledged member of your family with all that entails.
Insane, isn't?
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.