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: 23277
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 # 66.
#12. To: cranky (#0)
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.
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.
Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime.
A baby born in the USA is not an accessory to a crime. There is no crime of being born in the USA.
HorseHillary! The crime was committed when the baby mama invaded the US,taking the baby along with her.
Take it to court. I wish you the best of luck persuading the court that an unborn child committed a crime when the mother crossed the border.
The baby is clearly an accomplice.
I equally wish you good luck in arguing the theory of fetal accomplice to a crime.
I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on teebee,but that doesn't mean it is not a valid argument and that some lawyer can't and won't present it. ESPECIALLY given that the baby is a "Anchor Baby" from which all the "free money" and the "instant citizenship" flows to the parents.
No lawyer will attempt to present that to a court unless he wants to invite Rule 11 sanctions. A fetus as an accomplice to a crime? Really? For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime? I know you want to end birthright citizenship, but this just isn't the way.
A fetus as a BENEFICIARY to a crime. And yes,really. And there is plenty of case law basis to support that. For example,if you buy a stolen tv and the cops discover you have it,they will take it from you without compensation and return it to the lawful owner even though you had no part in stealing it and didn't know it was stolen when you bought it. The fetus is "Stealing" SS and other benefits they are not entitled to because they are not entitled to have US citizenship because the citizenship comes from the commission of a crime.
Be sure to properly Mirandize the fetal suspect. Apply the handcuffs carefully.
Be sure to properly Mirandize the fetal suspect. Apply the handcuffs carefully. Why are you playing at being a dummy on this? The crime isn't committed until the fetus becomes a live baby and becomes a US citizen and a recipient of a SS card and monthly check as a reward for committing the crime.
A baby cannot commit a crime. It lacks the mental capacity.
A baby cannot commit a crime. It lacks the mental capacity. Ok,you are in love with your opinion and love to argue in circles. Don't confuse that with being right,though.
#69. To: sneakypete (#66)
Don't confuse that with being right,though. - - - - - [sneakypete #19] Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime. A baby cannot commit a crime or be an accessory to a crime. All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are born citizens of the United States. All babies born are persons. Try reading Plyler v. Doe and Wong Kim Ark.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSome conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution.
#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.
#19. To: nolu chan (#16)
The baby committed no crime being born in the USA
#24. To: sneakypete (#19)
Of course they did. They were an accessory to the crime.
#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.
#41. To: sneakypete (#31)
HorseHillary! The crime was committed when the baby mama invaded the US,taking the baby along with her.
#44. To: nolu chan (#41)
Take it to court. I wish you the best of luck persuading the court that an unborn child committed a crime when the mother crossed the border.
#48. To: sneakypete (#44)
The baby is clearly an accomplice.
#50. To: nolu chan (#48)
I equally wish you good luck in arguing the theory of fetal accomplice to a crime.
#51. To: sneakypete (#50)
I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on teebee,but that doesn't mean it is not a valid argument and that some lawyer can't and won't present it.
#53. To: nolu chan (#51)
(Edited)
A fetus as an accomplice to a crime? Really?
#58. To: sneakypete (#53)
A fetus as a BENEFICIARY to a crime.
#60. To: nolu chan (#58)
A fetus as a BENEFICIARY to a crime.
#63. To: sneakypete (#60)
Why are you playing at being a dummy on this? The crime isn't committed until the fetus becomes a live baby and becomes a US citizen and a recipient of a SS card and monthly check as a reward for committing the crime.
#66. To: nolu chan (#63)
Why are you playing at being a dummy on this? The crime isn't committed until the fetus becomes a live baby and becomes a US citizen and a recipient of a SS card and monthly check as a reward for committing the crime.
Replies to Comment # 66. Ok,you are in love with your opinion and love to argue in circles.
[nolu chan #16] The baby committed no crime being born in the USA
End Trace Mode for Comment # 66.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]