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: 23268
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
#5. To: cranky (#0)
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.
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.
I sure you're correct but if that has been true since 1898, why was the Indian Citizenship Act necessary in 1924?
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.
#20. To: nolu chan (#15)
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?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution."
#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,”
#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.
#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)
Replies to Comment # 15.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 15.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]