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: 21719
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
Comments (1-17) not displayed.
.
.
.
#18. To: cranky (#14)
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.
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.
Pretty much. There is no DREAM Act. DACA goes with the stroke of a pen. The illegal alien parents have no constitutional or statutory right to stay. DACA is but an executive action. The baby cannot be deported, but the family can be kept together unless the parents choose to leave it.
Which is the prime reason the government doesn't want to deport them. It has nothing to do with compassion and everything to do with political power. 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 baby is clearly an accomplice. 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)
SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation. --- nolu chan Agreed, SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. --- And foreigners are abusing that interpretation to gain citizenship for their babies. Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree?
Yep.
No. It has been resolved. You just don't like the resolution. To changed the resolution, the Executive and Legislative branches are not empowered. SCOTUS could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
I equally wish you good luck in arguing the theory of fetal accomplice to a crime.
misterwhite (#23) --- All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Agreed, SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. --- And foreigners are abusing that interpretation to gain citizenship for their babies. Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree? Not many citizens do, as evidenced by these current national debates. Why do you side with the Obama faction? Yep, when challenged by congress or the executive, they could change their opinion, making an amendment unnecessary, just as I said initially.
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. 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)
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.
Still no. Congress can enact no law which nullifies any part of the Constitution. Immigration statutes must comply with the Constitution.
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. 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)
Being an ACCESSORY to a crime,and receiving things of value as a result of 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)
You're ignoring Article I, Section 8. Why? --- Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree? Congress would not need to. You just agreed that: --- Yep, when challenged by congress or the executive, SCOTUS could change their opinion, making an amendment unnecessary, just as I said initially.
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?
I am not ignoring it. It is as applicable as the 18th Amendment. Congress can establish a Rule of Naturalization. It cannot conflict with the Constitution. 14A cannot be changed or defeated by legislation.
Comments (58 - 101) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIs 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?
#41. To: sneakypete (#31)
HorseHillary! The crime was committed when the baby mama invaded the US,taking the baby along with her.
#42. To: tpaine (#33)
Problem solved?
#43. To: nolu chan (#39)
Some states could lose several representatives if illegal aliens were no longer present.
#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.
#45. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#37)
misterwhite (#23) --- All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38)
"If say one from Palestine was fighting us in a war. Would her little Jihadist be an American citizen?"
#47. To: tpaine (#45)
This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree?
#48. To: sneakypete (#44)
The baby is clearly an accomplice.
#49. To: nolu chan (#47)
SCOTUS has interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a constitutional matter. Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation. --- nolu chan
Congress lacks authority to change the SCOTUS constitutional interpretation.
No. It has been resolved. You just don't like the resolution.
To changed the resolution, the Executive and Legislative branches are not empowered.
You're ignoring Article I, Section 8. Why? SCOTUS could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
#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.
#52. To: tpaine (#49)
Try re-reading Article I, Section 8, wherein congress is given the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. -- This issue needs to be resolved by all three branches of govt. -- Can you agree?
#53. To: nolu chan (#51)
(Edited)
A fetus as an accomplice to a crime? Really?
#54. To: nolu chan (#51)
For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime?
#55. To: nolu chan (#52)
Still no. Congress can enact no law which nullifies any part of the Constitution.
SCOTUS could overrule its own well reasoned and solid and established opinion, or the people can exercise their sovereign power to change what they said in 14A.
#56. To: sneakypete (#54)
For that matter, have you ever heard of any infant child being charged or convicted of a crime?
#57. To: tpaine (#55)
You're ignoring Article I, Section 8. Why?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]