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: 21600
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 # 79.
#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.
That is NOT true no matter how many thousand times you type it. ONLY people who are here LEGALLY can become citizens of the United States.
That is NOT true no matter how many thousand times you type it. ONLY people who are here LEGALLY can become citizens of the United States. The baby has been in the U.S. all its life. It has never been anywhere else. It is in the U.S. legally. You do get an award for telling me a direct quote of the Constitution is NOT true.
It can NOT be in the US legally because the mother is in the US illegally. Or maybe you think the mothers find these children in the cabbage patch?
#80. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13, A K A Stone, Liberator, tpaine (#79)
It can NOT be in the US legally because the mother is in the US illegally. Or maybe you think the mothers find these children in the cabbage patch? The baby is a person, born in the United States, and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction thereof. The cases on the 14th Amendment go back to 1871. McKay v. Campbell, 16 Fed. Cas. 161, 164 (1871) McKay v. Campbell, 16 Fed. Cas. 161, 165 (1871) The only other construction of this clause that I can imagine possible, is the following: Taken literally, it does not appear to require that the person should be born "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;" but if he was born within its territorial limits, whether under its jurisdiction or not, and afterwards becomes subject to such jurisdiction; he then and so long as this status continues, becomes and remains a citizen of the United States. Assuming, as a matter of fact, that the plaintiff was born in the United States, although in the allegiance of the king of Great Britain, this construction of the fourteenth amendment would include him as a citizen, because he is now, and since 1846 has been, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But I think such construction fanciful and artificial. It is not to be presumed that the amendment was made to the constitution to change the rule of the common law, but rather to declare and enforce it uniformly throughout the United States and the several states, and especially in the case of the negro. In re Look Tin Sing, Fed. Rep. 905, 906 (1884), Justice Field Ex Parte Chin King, 35 Fed. Rep. 354, 355 (1888) In re Wong Kim Ark, 71 Fed. Rep. 382, 386 (1896)
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.
#76. To: nolu chan (#74)
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.
#78. To: sneakypete (#76)
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.
#79. To: nolu chan (#78)
The baby has been in the U.S. all its life. It has never been anywhere else. It is in the U.S. legally.
Replies to Comment # 79. The baby has been in the U.S. all its life. It has never been anywhere else. It is in the U.S. legally.
When it is said that "by the common law a person born of alien parents, and in the allegiance of the United States, is born a citizen thereof, it is necessarily understood that he is not only born on soil over which the United States has or claims jurisdiction, but that such jurisdiction for the time being is both actual and exclusive, so that such person is in fact born within the power, protection and obedience of the United States. Generally speaking, the various places in the world are claimed, or admitted for the time being, to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of some particular sovereign or government, so that a person born at any one of them is without doubt born in the allegiance of such particular sovereign or government.
Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution, commonly called the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, have been cited by counsel for plaintiff as bearing upon this question of the plaintiff's citizenship and consequent right to vote. The latter simply provides that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged * * * on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But as to who are "citizens of the United States" this article is silent—it being understood that that matter had been regulated or defined by article 14, § 1, which enacts: "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." Eliminate the words having reference to naturalized citizens, and the clause reads: "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens," etc. This is nothing more than declaratory of the rule of the common law as above stated. To be a citizen of the United States by reason of his birth, a person must not only be born within its territorial limits, but he must also be born subject to its jurisdiction—that is, in its power and obedience.
The first section of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution declares 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." This language would seem to be sufficiently broad to cover the case of the petitioner. He is a person born in the United States. Any doubt on the subject, if there can be any, must arise out of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They alone are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who are within their dominions and under the protection of their laws, and with the consequent obligation to obey them when obedience can be rendered; and only those thus subject by their birth or naturalization are within the terms of the amendment. The jurisdiction over these latter must, at the time, be both actual and exclusive. The words mentioned except from citizenship children born in the United States of persons engaged in the diplomatic service of foreign governments, such as ministers and ambassadors, whose residence, by a fiction of public law, is regarded as part of their own country. This ex-territoriality of their residence secures to their children born here all the rights and privileges which would inure to them had they been born in the country of their parents. Persons born on a public vessel of a foreign country, while within the waters of the United States, and consequently within their territorial jurisdiction, are also excepted. They are considered as born in the country to which the vessel belongs. In the sense of public law, they are not born within the jurisdiction of the United States.
By the common law, a child born within the allegiance—the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status of condition of its parents. McKay v. Campbell, 2 Sawy. 118; In re Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. Rep. 905; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583.
The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States must be controlling upon the question presented for decision in this matter, irrespective of what the common-law or international doctrine is. But the interpretation thereof is undoubtedly confused and complicated by the existence of these two doctrines, in view of the ambiguous and uncertain meaning of the qualifying phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which renders it a debatable question as to which rule the provision was intended to declare. Whatever of doubt there may be is with respect to the interpretation of that phrase. Does it mean “subject to the laws of the United States,” comprehending, in this expression, the allegiance that aliens owe in a foreign country to obey its laws; or does it signify, “to be subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States,” in the sense that is contended for on the part of the government? This question was ably and thoroughly considered in Re Look Tin Sing, supra, where it was held that it meant subject to the laws of the United States.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 79.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]