Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles
Title: Trump: Deny citizenship to babies of people illegally in US
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/trump-deny-ci ... ly-us-074126250--election.html
Published: Aug 17, 2015
Author: Steven Braun
Post Date: 2015-08-17 08:27:54 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 18645
Comments: 101
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to deny citizenship to the babies of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as part of an immigration plan that emphasizes border security and deportation for millions. He would also rescind Obama administration executive orders on immigration. Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the U.S. "They have to go," Trump said, adding: "What they're doing, they're having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows ... the baby's here." Native-born children of immigrants — even those living illegally in the U.S. — have been automatically considered American citizens since the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868. The odds of repealing the amendment's citizenship clause would be steep, requiring the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and support from three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures. Republicans in Congress have repeatedly failed since 2011 to pass bills aimed at ending "birthright citizenship." Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution. "They're illegal," Trump said, describing native-born children of people living illegally in the US. "You either have a country or not." Trump's remarks came as his campaign website posted his program for "immigration reform." Among its details: Making Mexico pay for a permanent border wall. Mandatory deportation of all "criminal aliens." Tripling the force of immigration officers by eliminating tax credit payments to immigrant families residing illegally in the U.S. Trump said a tough deportation policy was needed because "there's definitely evidence" of crimes linked to immigrants living in the country illegally. He repeated comments he's made previously, noting that: "The good people can come back." The New York businessman also said he would waste little time rescinding President Barack Obama's executive actions aimed at allowing as many as 3.7 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country because of their U.S.-born relatives. Obama's November 2014 actions were halted by temporary injunctions ordered by several federal courts in rulings challenging his executive powers to alter immigration policies without congressional approval. The cases could lead to the Supreme Court. "We have to make a whole new set of standards," Trump said. "And when people come in, they have to come in legally." Trump's plan was endorsed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who chairs a Senate subcommittee on immigration. "This is exactly the plan America needs," Sessions said in a statement. "Crucially, this plan includes an emphasis on lifting struggling minority communities, including our immigrant communities, out of poverty, by preventing corporations from bringing in new workers from overseas to replace them and drive down wages." Most other GOP candidates also back completing the border wall but differ over how to treat immigrant families already living in the U.S. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush recently released his own immigration plan, which calls for the use of forward bases and drones to guard the border, but also backing an eventual plan to legalize the status of immigrant families. On Sunday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he would "finish the wall" but would then work to legalize 11 million immigrants now estimated to live in the U.S. illegally. He spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation." Florida Sen. Marco Rubio worked with senators from both parties to develop a comprehensive plan in 2013 that would have legalized the status of many immigrant families. But Congress balked at the idea as tea party Republicans opposed the deal and Rubio has since backed away from his support. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
Game it out. Trump is elected. He proposes the legislation while simultaneously issuing the Executive Orders that are based on his reading of the 14th Amendment. That becomes the policy of the agencies. Somebody objects (many will) and takes the lawsuit to court, and the Republican Supreme Court hears it. Does the Republican Supreme Court agree with Trump, or does it back the plaintiffs? How will the Republican Party decide the case, when they are the final deciders. Will they back an outsider President who ran as a Republican? Or will they say that the 14th Amendment blocks this interpretation by Trump? Given that it'll be Republicans like Roberts and Kennedy making the final decision, I wouldn't get my hopes up that Trump would be upheld on this.
I don't believe politics have anything to do with SCOTUS decisions anymore, in most cases. Between Craig Livingstone and the NSA, the current Justices have no secrets. SCOTUS is not an independent entity, imho. SCOTUS decisions are predetermined long before SCOTUS chooses to hear the case. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
SCOTUS is an extension of the Democrat and Republican Party. It is populated by political loyalists who are put up there to advance their party's ideology through constitutional decisions.
Oh come on. Have we learned nothing in the last 7 years? The President only needs to instruct the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) not to issue social security numbers, passports, or citizenship papers to the children of illgals. Anyone who applies gets a knock on the door from ICE. Done.
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (not the 14th amendment) to "consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces." All this legislation is doing is defining the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It is not changing or amending anything. Some may mention United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents was a U.S. citizen. True, BUT the parents were here legally. The court has never ruled on the citizenship status of children born here to illegals.
Maybe once. But now, they're just puppets at the beck and call of whoever it is that makes their decisions for them. My guess is they're being blackmailed but simple bribery may explain some of the decisions. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
The status of the parents is irrelevant. The court has ruled on citizenship based on the status of the child at birth. The child may gain diplomatic immunity at birth if the parents are diplomats, and therefore not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The child neither leaves the territory nor jurisdiction of the United States based on the status of the parents. http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep169&id=671#671 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) - - - - - http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep169&id=697#697 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 675-76 (1898) As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. - - - - - http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep169&id=724#724 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898) contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
This would be struck down as unconstitutional. It would be an amendment of the 14th Amendment, altering the conditions upon which citizenship is bestowed, as specified in the amendment. "All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," cannot be amended by legislation to add other conditions.
I sure you're correct but if that has been true since 1898, why was the Indian Citizenship Act necessary in 1924? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
I agree. And I just got off of the phone with my mother -
It all depends on the opinions of five.
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yup,and if they realize they would have to make a non-PC decision they always refuse to view the case. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Is that the 'son of sam' law? Does every state have one? There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Note that it bestowed citizenship on all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, even if born outside the jurisdiction on a reservation under tribal law. The Indians have always had an unusual status. Some years back, an Indian made me aware that Indian nations issued passports accepted by other nations. http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/03.07/20-tribal.html HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES Finalists for American Indian awards announced The first-ever American Indian tribally operated eagle sanctuary that helps meet a pueblo's religious and ceremonial needs, an internationally recognized Native American lacrosse team whose members travel abroad using passports issued by their Indian nation, and a tribal wellness program that prevents and combats diabetes are among the 16 finalists in the University's American Indian tribal governance awards program for the year 2002.
That would never fly, but the law allowing the parents to stay could be revoked. The baby committed no crime being born in the USA.
They can always say whatever they want, that's true. The language of the 14th Amdt is very clear. I would not rule out the possibility that an anchor baby amendment could be passed and ratified.
Yes. Does every state have one? I doubt it,but that doesn't matter because if it has been determined to be Constitutional in one state,it would be Constitutional in every other state. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Supreme court would just have to rule that "subject to the jurisdiction" or however it is worded means that they are here legally or a citizen. Women serve in the military now. If we are fighting an enemy on American soil. Would the soldiers that ended up having babies while fighting us in war, be American citizens?
No argument there. The question is the definition of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the parents were not citizens, true, but were here legally and had established permanent residence. The court said that was sufficient for citizenship. Now let's look at Rosita, a Mexican citizen, who illegally crosses the border and gives birth to Carlos. The conclusion is that Carlos is an American citizen. Rosita stays in the U.S., lives with some friends, and raises Carlos. The U.S. goes to war somewhere and drafts Carlos into the military. Carlos says "Bull Shit! I ain't going. My mother's Mexican, my father's Mexican, and I'm Mexican. I don't care where I was born. The U.S. does not have jurisdiction over me and never has!" True? No?
Congress can read it that way and pass a law denying citizenship to the children born here to illegals. No amendment required. IF the law is challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the law, then we'd have to go the amendment route. Meaning that, once again, the court thwarted the will of the people.
Nope. All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is no different that the court interpreting "to regulate commerce" to include "to prohibit commerce".
A baby born in the USA is not an accessory to a crime. There is no crime of being born in the USA.
You do not want to go there. "Subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the laws of the United States. It only sounds like a good idea until you realize that such a new interpretation that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means they would have a status like a diplomat and could not be prosecuted for crimes against United States law. The either are, or are not, subject to the jurisdiction.
That's a pretty darn good point. If the act of entry is illegal and criminal, why doesn't the act de-legitimize and nullify the entire "transaction"?
And made retroactive? (I can dream about an "Anti-Dream Act", can't I?)
As we've repeatedly witnessed, the language of the 14A seems only as "clear" as 5 SC justices and a bunch of psychotic politicians are inclined to make it.
It means not owing allegiance to anybody else. What about my Carlos example in post #21?
That's a pretty darn good point. If the act of entry is illegal and criminal, why doesn't the act de-legitimize and nullify the entire "transaction"? ---- Liberator Because once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. -- And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents.. Problem solved?
HorseHillary! The crime was committed when the baby mama invaded the US,taking the baby along with her. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I know *technically* that is the case. But the original constitutional intent would have NEVER allowed this loophole and gaming of the system to this degree. I would submit that there are laws that supersede the raw acceptance of "once born here." And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents..Problem solved? If THAT is THE only card in the deck to play, it must be played. FOR NOW. (Then again, as Pete suggested, because the act was facilitated by an illegal act to begin with, why should the loophole and subsequent birth be honored by a law that is scoffed at to begin with? ) If illegals breaks into our home while we're away on a month vacation and use the existing nursery as their own, is the home then deemed *theirs* as well?? what of the old, "possession is 9/10 of the law"? As a matter of ethics, morals, and intent of law, their are thieves and parasites stealing nests. OUR AMERICAN NEST.
Because once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. -- And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents.. Problem solved?
No.
If we are fighting an enemy on American soil. Would the soldiers that ended up having babies while fighting us in war, be American citizens? I have difficulty unscrambling the question. If an American servicewoman, fighting on American soil, has a baby -- the baby apparently is born on american soil, subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and is a natural born U.S. citizen. Literally, the question appears to be, "Would the soldiers ... be American citizens? If they started out as American citizens they would be American citizens. Aliens would not be transformed.
No? If Mr. & Mrs Lopez, citizens of Mexico, were visiting the U.S. and gave birth to a baby here, that baby can be drafted in the U.S. military? Come on. That baby is a Mexican citizen just like his parents.
SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation.
Women all over the world are serving in the military. If say one from Palestine was fighting us in a war. Would her little Jihadist be an American citizen?
No. There is no DREAM Act. No such bill ever passed Congress. Talk of DREAMers is bullshit based on failed legislation. There is DACA, but that is only an Obama administration Executive action of Jeh Johnson. It could disappear with a stroke of a pen. I don't think you could get an amendment to make lawful residents unlawful. If they have not become naturalized citizens, perhaps. It could make unlawful residents mandatorily deportable, and limit prosecutorial discretion. DACA can disappear with the stroke of a pen. The DREAM Act does not exist. The right of legal residence for the illegal alien parents of a U.S. citizen baby does not exist in the constitution or statute. It is done as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. It is only the child who is a citizen and cannot be deported. The child cannot petition to change the status of the parents until the child is 21 years old. And in case you have never considered it, we do not have a census of citizens. It is a head count of people -- citizens, legal aliens, illegal aliens. Constitutional representation is based on the census. Some states could lose several representatives if illegal aliens were no longer present.
Still no.
Comments (41 - 101) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
Does the Republican Supreme Court agree with Trump, or does it back the plaintiffs?
#3. To: cranky (#2)
SCOTUS is not an independent entity
#4. To: cranky (#0)
"The odds of repealing the amendment's citizenship clause would be steep, requiring the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and support from three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures."
#5. To: cranky (#0)
"Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution."
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
It is populated by political loyalists who are put up there to advance their party's ideology through constitutional decisions.
#7. To: misterwhite (#5)
The court has never ruled on the citizenship status of children born here to illegals.
The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution begins with the words,
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.”
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
“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,”
#8. To: misterwhite (#5)
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (not the 14th amendment) to "consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces."
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.
#10. To: cranky (#0)
(Edited)
Donald Trump wants to deny citizenship to the babies
of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally...
and she agrees also. And there is NO ONE more
more 'pro-baby' than my 81 year old mother.
No one. Believe it.
#11. To: nolu chan (#8)
This would be struck down as unconstitutional.
#12. To: cranky (#0)
Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution.
#13. To: cranky (#2)
SCOTUS decisions are predetermined long before SCOTUS chooses to hear the case.
#14. To: sneakypete (#12)
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime
#15. To: cranky (#9)
I sure you're correct but if that has been true since 1898, why was the Indian Citizenship Act necessary in 1924?
Be it enacted by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. (Approved June 2, 1924)
#16. To: sneakypete, cranky (#12)
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
It all depends on the opinions of five.
#18. To: cranky (#14)
Is that the 'son of sam' law?
#19. To: nolu chan (#16)
The baby committed no crime being born in the USA
#20. To: nolu chan (#15)
#21. To: nolu chan (#7)
(Edited)
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States"
#22. To: A K A Stone (#20)
"The Supreme court would just have to rule that "subject to the jurisdiction" or however it is worded means that they are here legally or a citizen."
#23. To: nolu chan (#8)
"It would be an amendment of the 14th Amendment, altering the conditions upon which citizenship is bestowed"
#24. To: sneakypete (#19)
Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime.
#25. To: misterwhite (#23)
All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
#26. To: sneakypete, cranky, nolu chan (#12)
It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally.
#27. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#17)
(Edited)
I would not rule out the possibility that an anchor baby amendment could be passed and ratified.
#28. To: nolu chan (#17)
The language of the 14th Amdt is very clear.
#29. To: nolu chan (#25)
(Edited)
"Subject to the jurisdiction" means subject to the laws of the United States.
#30. To: Liberator, Y'ALL (#26)
sneakypete, --- It's already illegal because it is illegal to profit from a crime,and the baby's parents as well as the baby profit from entering the country illegally.
#31. To: nolu chan (#24)
A baby born in the USA is not an accessory to a crime. There is no crime of being born in the USA.
#32. To: tpaine, sneakypete (#30)
Because once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. --
#33. To: liberator, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#30)
If the act of entry is illegal and criminal, why doesn't the act de-legitimize and nullify the entire "transaction"? ---- Liberator
I absolutely concur. A child born to two illegal aliens awaiting deportation in a detention center is a natural born citizen. The child is born in the United States and does not enjoy immunity from U.S. jurisdiction. --- What could be done, and what I understand Trump to be alluding to with a nuanced statement, is that the parents could be deported. The U.S. citizen child could not be deported, but they could take the child with them, keeping the family together. Or not. Their choice. ---- The 14th Amdt. establishes citizenship for the child. It does not grant anchor status for the parents. ----- nolu chan posted on 2015-08-19
#34. To: misterwhite (#21)
True? No?
#35. To: A K A Stone (#20)
Women serve in the military now.
#36. To: nolu chan (#34)
"No."
#37. To: misterwhite (#23)
All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
#38. To: nolu chan (#35)
If an American servicewoman
#39. To: Liberator, sneakypete (#27)
(I can dream about an "Anti-Dream Act", can't I?)
And made retroactive?
#40. To: misterwhite (#29)
What about my Carlos example in post #21?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]