Trump: Deny citizenship to babies of people illegally in US

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.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump greats the crowd at the Iowa State Fair Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, in Des Moines.
August 17, 2015

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.

Online:

"Meet the Press":
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/

Immigration plan on Trump website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform


I don't usually post Trump stuff, but I know that Mshrmny and Soufie are his biggest fans.

I wonder if Trump has any idea of how he could legally fulfill any of his plans, any idea of legal strategy to go forward with them.

Or if he's just like Obama and is going to operate on a "better to ask forgiveness than permission" or "pass it, enact it, and enforce it, before you find out what's in it and if it's legal" policy.

Links ? For the Dems & Libs plans please... or are they on the other thread. ? Nope...not there.

And when did The Self Appointed Emperor Of Chicago ask for forgiveness of anything? Links ?

President asks for forgiveness-
President Of UGANDA... the only one EVER. And that was 2012.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8257/president-repents-confesses-sin-asks-forgiveness/

How long till the firsr hair joke post?

As I posted on another thread, all it takes for the anchor baby issue to evaporate is a bill from congress that states illegals are still under the jurisdiction (which they are) of their respective country ... just like a diplomat.

I would agree with trump on this

It is redundant to say "joke" immediately after mentioning Trump's hair.

Thereeeee it is!

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCS�1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.




1. P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)

2. Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., Illegal Aliens and American Medicine The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 (Spring 2005)

3. Al Knight, Track 'anchor babies', Denver Post (September 11, 2002)

4. Al Knight, Change U.S. law on anchor babies, Denver Post (June 22, 2005)

5. Tom DeWeese, The Mexican Fifth Column (January 27, 2003)

6. Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

7. Tom DeWeese, "The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion" (American policy Center)

8. P.A. Madison, Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance The Federalist Blog (December 17, 2005)

9. Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty - Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims (September 29, 2005)

10. William Buchanan, HR-73 -- Protecting America's Sovereignty, The Social Contract (Fall, 1999) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark 1898 Supreme Court case

11. Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation's Future -- Part Two -- Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter, 2005) - includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark court case

12. U.S. Supreme Court ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (Findlaw, 1884)

13. U.S. Supreme Court Slaughter-House cases ('Lectric Law Library, 1873) http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case30.htm


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html


How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
By John Dillin July 6, 2006

Like him or loathe him a lot of what he says is exactly what a lot of people are thinking, especially on immigration.
Send him across here and let him sort our immigration problems out.
But before anyone has a go, I would remind you that this is a pg site so please, keep your hair on.
No pun intended of course!!!

seems like GB problems are a bit worse than ours, since your on an Island... i was watching the news about the people trying to get into GB through the tunnel from France...

but whatever any of the candidates are saying now means nothing until they are elected, mostly all lies to get votes... Obarry proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt...

It was a good run..

WE are all gonna be third world living from now on...

yea, thanks Obarry...

Trump is right.

There's an old saying that a Presidents policies are those of the previous President. A lot can happen in 4-8 years and sometimes not much on a particular issue does. Illegal aliens have been pouring over our southern border for decades. Ask anyone in California Arizona and Texas near the border. You might not understand their answer if you don't speak Spanish. There are 700 out of roughly 2000 miles of border that do have walls and very tall fences but if Korea's DMZ can be tunneled through so can our wall that Mexico would never pay for. The DMZ is the most heavily guarded and fortified border wall systems in the world. A wall even as I have proposed, wouldn't stop iillegal immigration. Itd just be something else tall for trump to plaster his name on. This 14pt plan is a scam. The wall many people claim doesn't exist was never completed because of hills water features (like the lake where the Americans were killed by Mexican drug cartels) private land Indian reservations..... I suppose you could build a wall through a lake but getting over it would be fun as hell and whoever did it would get GoPro Red Bull and or Monster sponsorship and it might become an extreme sport. Anyway, Obama fought tooth and nail for serious immigration reform but was shut down by republicans time and time again. His executive order didn't get him impeached but what it will do is force the next President and congress to fix what has been broken and lining the pockets of the top 1% (hey isn't trump part of the private real estate and construction 1%ers?) for DECADES. (Is he still...? He was ,then he wasn't all of a sudden he starts sounding like Joan Rivers). Halfway through the remaining 1300 approximate miles of wall to be built or once the tab hits $25billion which ever comes first, the project will be bankrupt and trump would claim no responsibility and write it off on his taxes.
In hindsight, I don't think New Mexico was a good choice of name for a state.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.ch/2015/08/what-happened-fence-promised-by-2006.html

In his speech in El Paso on immigration reform on May 10, 2011, Obama declared that the fence along the border with Mexico is "now basically complete." Like much of what comes out of the Obama administration, that was a lie. What was supposed to be built was a double layered fence with barbed-wire on top, and room for a security vehicle to patrol between the layers. Except for 36 of the seven-hundred mile fence, what was built looks like the picture above or the one above.

But that doesn't stop your "Liar in Chief". He claims.

"We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement," Obama said. "All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time."

Maybe he's right--the goal posts were moved, but to make the job easier.

But,He Didn't Build That!