Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
JerryBobCo
Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
Trump's immigration plan (for real)
JerryBobCo
Posts: 8,227 Senior Member
Part of his plan is to deport all illegal immigrants (ok by me), including anchor babies. When asked about breaking up families in a recent interview, he said he would not do that, but deport entire families instead, even if some of the family members were born in the U.S. His position is that persons born here whose parents illegally entered the country are not granted citizenship simply by the fact they were born here.
My take is that doing this would be in violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment. I am fully aware that this amendment was written specifically to grant citizenship to former slaves during the reconstruction period. My guess is that the anchor baby phenomena was not even a consideration when this was ratified. However, the wording is pretty clear to me.
Here's the text of section 1 of the 14th amendment.
"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
According to Judge Napolitano, who is a frequent guest on various Fox News programs, the supreme court has upheld this any and every time a case has been brought before them to try and deport someone born in this country. And, per him, the due process part would take decades to do for over 11 million people.
My opinion is that this is yet another case of Trump pandering to his base. He has some good points, but this is not one of them.
My take is that doing this would be in violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment. I am fully aware that this amendment was written specifically to grant citizenship to former slaves during the reconstruction period. My guess is that the anchor baby phenomena was not even a consideration when this was ratified. However, the wording is pretty clear to me.
Here's the text of section 1 of the 14th amendment.
"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
According to Judge Napolitano, who is a frequent guest on various Fox News programs, the supreme court has upheld this any and every time a case has been brought before them to try and deport someone born in this country. And, per him, the due process part would take decades to do for over 11 million people.
My opinion is that this is yet another case of Trump pandering to his base. He has some good points, but this is not one of them.
Jerry
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Replies
He's also talked about amending the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby protection. That'll take approval of 2/3 of the House and the Senate PLUS 3/4 of the several states. Not.
Going.
To.
Happen.
Talking heads were WRONG and can't stand it. They all said he would have fizzled out way before now. A lot of them are backtracking and trying explain why they were wrong, modifying their predictions.
I'll vote for Donald as a REP if he wins the nomination over any DEM.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
:that:
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
Problem solved.
As to Trump. He is a clipper ship. Looks real good under full sail, because he goes where the wind blows.
This would impact the economy for a while, and would run some small companies out of business, and I'm sure other measures would be needed to prevent corruption of the system. But, it's simple and honest and would create job opportunities for people who have run out of unemployment insurance, or were booted off welfare, and kids.
Now he's talking out his ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies. He knows better than that but he gets on a roll and knows there are people out there that will believe anything he says and so he gives them something they really want, even if it really can't happen. All this is election hype.
Besides, if something was deemed legal when it happened you can't go back retroactively and change it, no expostfacto. Those that are already here as anchor babies will stay here as anchor babies. Now he may get the Constitution amended but that ain't retroactive. That will only pertain to future cases. If not, then this country is in worse shape with him than Obama. No president can arbitrarily change the Constitution or its amendments without due process. And like I said, once something is done under the Constitution as is, it can't be retroactively undone due to an amendment or change in the law. All those anchor babies who are now citizens will be grandfathered if he does get the Amendment amended.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Yeah me too. There's better candidates running, but if he gets the nomination as a Rep, he gets my vote, pure and simple. Because no matter how bad he could be, he would still be a lot better than a Hillary or Bernie.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
So is Obama, but have you noticed the Constitution slowing him down?
Another thing, if he wants a wall, and congress won't pay for it all, he's got enough money to build 4 walls and have change left over. I think he'd use his own money just to make his point.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Crap on all the PC BS that protects them!
I agree with you, but this is the very reason George W. wanted a guest worker program. You don't need illegals to do this sort of thing. The guest worker program allows for documenting foreign workers and paying them better than what they can earn in their own country but cheap for the US. Now tell me what's unfair about that? The number of Filipinos alone that I know who would relish such an opportunity is in the thousands and that's just me. There's millions of non citizens who really want to do work U.S. Citizens don't. Document them and let them at it.
Of course, your party will take advantage of any potential vote and screw up a good thing and have non citizens voting before we know it.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
― Douglas Adams
I suspect that it's those medium range rifle shots that are the most effective deterrent.
Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
THIS. Any "border barrier" not enforced to the death of those who choose to attempt to surpass it is NOT a real border, and is instead, nothing more than "I wish you would stay over there" wishful thinking.
Sort of like the difference between a 4' wall around your back yard, and a 4' wall around your back yard with a big mean **** dog that will bite intruders. One is a deterrent, and the other is not.
A real deterrent HAS to have "teeth".
Luis
A message of Hope and Change that's devoid of any actual substance or possibility of application? It seems like I've heard this before. . .where was that? Hmmmmmm. . . .
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
It doesn't have to happen.
Read the 14th Amendment, and read the comments of the author of it about the intent. Some pretty good legal scholars say that the liberal (politically speaking) interpretation takes the part about being born here automatically being a citizen out of context, and ignores the part that means that Congress can make laws to govern the cititizenship (or lack thereof) of a person born to illegal aliens. They compare that interpretation to the 2nd Amendment interpretation by liberals that claims it only applies to militias.
I haven't studied it carefully, myself, but I know you will, so if you debunk what I said, I'll have to read it for myself. :jester:
I'll agree that the 14th was most likely NOT intended to address"anchor babies" when it was written.
Yup. Trump does not believe this stuff. This is just the new product that he is selling
-Mikhail Kalashnikov
No, I was listening to Mark Levin delivering his opinion on Fox News. I assumed that with your remarkable Google-Foo, you would do all the research and make an argument, yea or nay. I have already watched Geraldo Rivera give his bait and switch rebuttal of that opinion, but I would like somebody who is better qualified to give the opposing view. Levin is not a neutral party, but he is a damned knowledgeable Constitutional lawyer, whom I have yet to see proven wrong on his Constitutional interpretations.
I'll look for some documentation when I get in the mood, if you're going to be lazy. :tooth:
Yes. Levin read from the actual author's statement about what the language of the amendment that he wrote did, and did not, mean.
EDIT: Never mind all that - here's an article that explains what I was trying to say from someone entirely different.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/constitution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/
It ends by saying "...But none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal. While parts of it may face legal challenges, denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment."
Edited to add: now that I've read your post about the author: I'm getting a better idea. Now I see where immigration/citizenship status comes into play.
I'll look it up later, but my understanding is that deporting the anchor babies will take a bit of legal time.
Jerry
I think this is an accurate appraisal. But it could be done, and if suits were filed, it would ultimately be decided by the courts.
― Douglas Adams
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA :roll2::rotflmao::rotflmao::roll2
I can't see you, so I'll have to take your word for it: did you type that with a straight face?
:uhm:
Jerry