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: 18696
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 # 77.
#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.
Being an ACCESSORY to a crime,and receiving things of value as a result of the crime.
Being an ACCESSORY to a crime,and receiving things of value as a result of the crime. An infant or a fetus? Charged/convicted criminally? Do we have a special prison for one-year olds? Do they Mirandize the fetus or the one-year old?
No,but we can damn sure deport them.
The United States cannot deport a U.S. citizen baby.
The United States cannot deport a U.S. citizen baby. The baby is not a citizen. It is a illegal alien.
Every baby born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a citizen of the United States. You are free to make believe the Constitution does not say that.
You are free to make believe the Constitution does not say that. Ok,bubba. PLEASE point out to me where the Constitution says that illegal alien invaders suddenly become instant citizens. What's your next claim,that home invaders suddenly become owners of the home because they are in possession? Can a theif steal your car and have it suddenly become his?
You are free to make believe the Constitution does not say that. Ok,bubba. PLEASE point out to me where the Constitution says that illegal alien invaders suddenly become instant citizens. Please point out how a baby born in the United States is an illegal alien invader.
That's a lot like pointing out that water is wet. If the mother is an illegal alien,so is the baby she gave birth to.
Saying that does not make it so. This is directly contrary to the plain black letter language of the Constitution. Not liking what 14A says does not change its clear meaning. The child was born in the United States. A born child is a person. The phrase "within its jurisdiction" extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the law of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Te child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States unless it had diplomatic immunity. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
The child was born in the United States. Yes,but the child doesn't reside in the US. It resides in some 3rd world shithole,and is an illegal invader here.
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. The child was born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The child is a natural born United States citizen and eligible to run fpr President. If you do not like the Constitution, get it amended. Or you can play make believe if that makes you feel better.
You ignore what the writers of the law said it means.
You ignore that the people who ratified the amendment text presented to them did not know what you imagine to be the alternative meaning that the Congress meant. The people voted on the text, not anyone's unknown ruminations. The baby was subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Even illegal aliens within the territory of the United States are subject to its jurisdiction. If not, they could burn down your house, shoot your dog, and do whatever else comes to mind and not be liable to any potential prosecution for any crime. That's what it would mean to not be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. or its courts.
There are no replies to Comment # 77. End Trace Mode for Comment # 77.
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.
#54. To: nolu chan (#51)
For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime?
#56. To: sneakypete (#54)
For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime?
#59. To: nolu chan (#56)
An infant or a fetus? Charged/convicted criminally? Do we have a special prison for one-year olds?
#62. To: sneakypete (#59)
No,but we can damn sure deport them.
#65. To: nolu chan (#62)
No,but we can damn sure deport them.
#67. To: sneakypete (#65)
The baby is not a citizen. It is a illegal alien.
#68. To: nolu chan (#67)
(Edited)
Every baby born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a citizen of the United States.
#70. To: sneakypete (#68)
Every baby born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is born a citizen of the United States.
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
Please point out how a baby born in the United States is an illegal alien invader.
#72. To: sneakypete (#71)
If the mother is an illegal alien,so is the baby she gave birth to.
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.
the phrase “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory.
#73. To: nolu chan (#72)
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.
#74. To: sneakypete (#73)
Yes,but the child doesn't reside in the US. It resides in some 3rd world shithole,and is an illegal invader here.
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#75)
You ignore what the writers of the law said it means.
Replies to Comment # 77.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]