LF: Donald Trump, the GOP and the immigration swamp

Donald Trump should not be exempt from normal scrutiny or from consideration of the effect of his candidacy on conservatism's future.

If you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th Amendment. Barring some esoteric and radically new jurisprudence, abolition would require amending the Constitution. Which would take years and great political effort. And make the GOP anathema to Hispanic-Americans for a generation.

And for what? Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a cause. If you regain control of the border, the number of birthright babies fades to insignificance. The time and energy it would take to amend the Constitution are far more usefully deployed securing the border.

Moreover, the real issue is not the birthright babies themselves, but the chain migration that follows. It turns one baby into an imported village.

Chain migration, however, is not a constitutional right. It's a result of statutes and regulations. These can be readily changed. That should be the focus, not a quixotic constitutional battle.

Mass deportation

Last Sunday, Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd that all illegal immigrants must leave the country. Although once they've been kicked out, we will let "the good ones" back in.

On its own terms, this is crackpot. Wouldn't you save a lot just on Mayflower moving costs if you chose the "good ones" first before sending Swat teams to turf families out of their homes, loading them on buses and dumping them on the other side of the Rio Grande?

Less frivolously, it is estimated by the conservative American Action Forum that mass deportation would take about 20 years and cost about $500 billion for all the police, judges, lawyers and enforcement agents – and bus drivers! – needed to expel 11 million people.

This would all be merely ridiculous if it weren't morally obscene. Forcibly evict 11 million people from their homes? It can't happen. It shouldn't happen. And, of course, it won't ever happen. But because it's the view of the Republican front-runner, every other candidate is now required to react. So instead of debating border security, guest-worker programs and sanctuary cities – where Republicans are on firm moral and political ground – they are forced into a debate about a repulsive fantasy.

Which, for the Republican Party, is also political poison. Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points and he was advocating only self-deportation. Now the party is discussing forced deportation.

It is not just Hispanics who will be alienated. Romney lost the Asian vote, too. By 47 points. And many non-minorities will be offended by the idea of rounding up 11 million people, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding members of their communities.

Donald Trump has every right to advance his ideas. He is not to be begrudged his masterly showmanship, his relentless candor or his polling success. I strongly oppose the idea of ostracising anyone from the GOP or the conservative movement. On whose authority? Let the people decide.

But that is not to say that he should be exempt from normal scrutiny or from consideration of the effect of his candidacy on conservatism's future. If you are a conservative alarmed at the country's direction and committed to retaking the White House, you should be concerned about what Trump's ascendancy is doing to the chances of that happening.

The Democrats' presumptive candidate is flailing badly. Republicans have an unusually talented field with a good chance of winning back the presidency. Do they really want to be dragged into the swamps -- right now, on immigration -- that will make that prospect electorally impossible?

Yes, I understand. The anger, the frustration, etc., etc., that Trump is channeling. But how are these alleviated by yelling "I'm mad as hell" -- and proceeding to elect Hillary Clinton?

If you are born in the United States you are are subject to our laws -- unless you're a diplomat. So says the 14th Amendment.

And if our laws say you're not a citizen, then you're not. So says the U.S. Constitution.

You are indulging in fantasy thinking. If it were so easy as just "Say what I want, and that's what words mean", then you'd have your way.

But that's not what the 14th says, and it's not what jurisdiction means, and it's not going to change.

You people are going to exhaust yourself attacking an invincible hill and accomplish nothing.

There are plenty of ways to win the war against illegal immigration, but a direct assault on the 14th Amendment is going to fail disastrously.

You can repeat all you like that I'm wrong. If it's ever litigated, you will discover that you knew the outcome all along, because I've told you.

IF the Bahamas invade America, the Bahama's lose. There's no other possible outcome. The same is true with this direct assault on the 14th Amendment that has gained popularity in the fever swamp. It's popular in the fever swamp, it's a fever, it's dumb as a post, it's contrary to language and law, and it will never win one victory, in any appellate jurisdiction in America, and the Supreme Court will wipe out the idea 9-0. You can take that to the bank.

Now spend your time and energy on things that CAN work to address illegal immigration. There are plenty. You are pouring your energy into a dark rathole with this 14th Amendment jurisdiction approach.

There are lawyers out there who are PAID to generate pretty bad arguments to try to support the idea. But anybody who is working on this pro-bono is an utter fool.

Jurisdiction means "power to try". Illegals and their children can be tried, therefore, they are by definition subject to US jurisdiction, and THEREFORE under the 14th Amendment, the children born here are citizens. That's what it SAYS in plain English. That's what it means. No appellate court will ever find anything different.

No matter how enraged you get me for telling you the truth, that truth is not going to change, at all, ever.

For the court to change the definition of jurisdiction, to narrow it, would be to cut off their own power. They will not do that.

And specifically, SCOTUS has ruled that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction. Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.

Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.

Even more garbage. That case has nothing to do with citizenship. It has to do with "persons", regardless of their status.

The 14th Amendment says that those born in the US and subject to US jursdiction are citizens.

"In the US" means US territory. Perhaps Congress could say that overseas territories are not "the US" for this purpose, that MIGHT pass Constitutional muster, but in the 50 states, it's the US by definition.

Jurisdiction means subject to the laws and courts. If they can prosecute you, you're subject to jurisdiction - that's what the word MEANS. Diplomats with immunity cannot be tried or prosecuted. The courts have no POWER to try them. They are not subject to US laws. If they break the US laws, any old US law, the US can't prosecute them, because they're not subject to jurisdiction. All we can do is expel them.

Foreign governments can waive immunity to allow their diplomats with immunity to be tried. If some ambassador commits a heinous multiple murder, he can't be prosecuted here. He can only be expelled. However, his sovereign could waive immunity, making that diplomat subject to our jurisdiction. And then he can be tried.

Being outside of US jurisdiction while within the USA means being immune to the laws. That's the effect of saying that illegals are not under US jurisdiction - they would all be immune to prosecution!

It's insane. And the courts will never do it. Nor will they redefine jurisdiction. And if they don't, then there is no way to take birth right citizenship for "anchor babies" out of the 14th Amendment. It's there, in stone. Either the Amendment would have to be amended, or the illegal immigration problem will have be addressed using some other expedient, because the "jurisdiction" dog don't hunt.