Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[bedowin62]

no stupid; would you leave your child(ren) behind?

People send their children here alone. Figure it out.

good one dummy; now figure out why, ask yourself the same question.

geesh

I have, which is why I know that when people are deported they don't always take the kiddos with them. They send them here, and leave them here, because this is where they can have a better life. That should make you happy, but it won't.

well then they arent deported you idiot. that was what you were replying to; somebody claiming republicans want to deport American citizens.

you idiots have Attention Deficit Disorder or something; in your rush to sanctimonious clowns you're all over the map

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Trump. The children of undocumented.

no stupid; would you leave your child(ren) behind?

People send their children here alone. Figure it out.

good one dummy; now figure out why, ask yourself the same question.

geesh

I have, which is why I know that when people are deported they don't always take the kiddos with them. They send them here, and leave them here, because this is where they can have a better life. That should make you happy, but it won't.

but you've already acknowledged the parents ARE with the children here you mindless moron; WHICH MEANS they had always planned to be here together. if they choose to leave their own children behind it is their decision dummy; eithe way it isnt a deportation on the part of Republicans

Trump wants them deported as well. There would be no way to keep the family together otherwise. Read what he says instead of trying to impose your own vision. If he doesn't want to split up families then he would have to deport the kiddos. There's no other way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

People send their children here alone. Figure it out.

good one dummy; now figure out why, ask yourself the same question.

geesh

I have, which is why I know that when people are deported they don't always take the kiddos with them. They send them here, and leave them here, because this is where they can have a better life. That should make you happy, but it won't.

well then they arent deported you idiot. that was what you were replying to; somebody claiming republicans want to deport American citizens.

you idiots have Attention Deficit Disorder or something; in your rush to sanctimonious clowns you're all over the map

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!

I know the numbers, and why you want the little brown ones to go...

 

[bedowin62]

The Left is the one with the keep the family together policy regarding illegal immigration; that's why they offer WELFARE benefits to the WHOLE HOUSEHOLD of an American-born "anchor baby" regardless of how many illegals are in it

 

[Vandalshandle]

That's odd. I don't see a single thing in the above law that makes the illegal alien a felon. Just those that knowingly aid and assist them, like employers.

try again.

Just holding a job to aid an illegal spouse or illegal children to remain, providing them housing, money, food and transportation qualifies, dummy. I didn't post the complete link, go read it.

It is odd that no illegal alien has ever been charged with a felony based solely on being in the US without documentation on a first offense, not even under the Bush administration.

I think that you should not give up your other job to become an attorney.

Maybe if we get an AG who is willing to deal with the problem you might see them getting inventive, if you were an illegal and a prosecutor gave you a choice of self deporting or facing a decade in jail, what do you think they would do? Just because the tool hasn't been used, doesn't mean it's not available. Of course if the aiding and abetting laws were fully used, your dear leader would be looking at a few million years in jail for illegally deferring prosecution, deportation and providing work permits to more than 3 million and the folks running these sanctuary cities could be facing hundreds of years.

Are you aware of what they have been doing down here about IA for the last 10 years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

I have no problem with that.

 

[bedowin62]

the Right has no control over who comes here illegally leftard. if we shared a border with poland and had a problem with 15 million or so pale polish people here the GOP would be calling for their deportation too

you're just a race-baiting clown dude, it's all you on the Left really know

 

[paddymurphy]

you're a moron and an o-bot. so any ol thing can humor you leftard. why dont you go play with a napkin or something?

Idiot. You started by saying Trampon is not going to kill them.
I said trampons will rounded them up just like the NAZI did. Are there any difference? NAZI exterminate the Jews. Trampons eliminate the Hispanics that sounds very good.

First, one can tell from your 3rd grade name calling of Trump you are a troll. Second, Trump talked about deporting ILLEGALS, he said nothing of rounding up Hispanics. If we got rid of all then ILLEGALS, there would still be tens of millions of LEGAL Hispanics in this country. Third, Hitler first murdered the Jews in open public. That was bad for PR. He then made them slaves. He then sent them to concentration and death camps. He never deported anyone. I wish he did, but he was more hell bend on genocide. Trump is talking about deporting illegals and not genocide.

Please grow up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, he's merely suggesting obeying the law. It's hard to fathom how we've gotten to this point where millions of Americans are angry with him for suggesting such a thing. Obeying the law has become a blasphemous notion to them. That's how far we've fallen. But Trump just has to stay strong and persevere. He's got it right. And he does have support.

How is he talking about obeying the law when he wants to change the 14th Amendment? We have not fallen at all. We are stronger now than we were 7 years ago. Illegal immigration is not a problem. There are no longer scores of people trying to get in. The number of illegals has not grown in 7 years.

You obviously do not live near the border.

What would that have to do with the FACT that there is no net increase in immigrants? Nothing. The claims about "crime" are bullshit, fueled by racist assholes. Crime is lower in areas near the border.

 

[bedowin62]

Idiot. You started by saying Trampon is not going to kill them.
I said trampons will rounded them up just like the NAZI did. Are there any difference? NAZI exterminate the Jews. Trampons eliminate the Hispanics that sounds very good.

First, one can tell from your 3rd grade name calling of Trump you are a troll. Second, Trump talked about deporting ILLEGALS, he said nothing of rounding up Hispanics. If we got rid of all then ILLEGALS, there would still be tens of millions of LEGAL Hispanics in this country. Third, Hitler first murdered the Jews in open public. That was bad for PR. He then made them slaves. He then sent them to concentration and death camps. He never deported anyone. I wish he did, but he was more hell bend on genocide. Trump is talking about deporting illegals and not genocide.

Please grow up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, he's merely suggesting obeying the law. It's hard to fathom how we've gotten to this point where millions of Americans are angry with him for suggesting such a thing. Obeying the law has become a blasphemous notion to them. That's how far we've fallen. But Trump just has to stay strong and persevere. He's got it right. And he does have support.

How is he talking about obeying the law when he wants to change the 14th Amendment? We have not fallen at all. We are stronger now than we were 7 years ago. Illegal immigration is not a problem. There are no longer scores of people trying to get in. The number of illegals has not grown in 7 years.

You obviously do not live near the border.

What would that have to do with the FACT that there is no net increase in immigrants? Nothing. The claims about "crime" are bullshit, fueled by racist assholes. Crime is lower in areas near the border.

but that's not a fact leftard. and it's ILLEGAL immigrant. say it with me!!

 

[paddymurphy]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Bullshit. Natural born citzenship

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

Our 14th Amendment was for Slaves not illegals who come here to give birth.

The 14th Amendment, you constitutionally illiterate asshole, was for all citizens. It prohibits states from denying due process or equal rights to any citizen, defined as anyone born in the United States.

 

[paddymurphy]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

You cite Ann Coulter? She is a fucking moron. The 14th Amendment is 150 years old. It has never been construed other than to provide for citizenship to those born here.

 

[bedowin62]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Bullshit. Natural born citzenship

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

Our 14th Amendment was for Slaves not illegals who come here to give birth.

The 14th Amendment, you constitutionally illiterate asshole, was for all citizens. It prohibits states from denying due process or equal rights to any citizen, defined as anyone born in the United States.

who passed that anyway leftard?

and who was it clearly meant to help?

 

[peach174]

good one dummy; now figure out why, ask yourself the same question.

geesh

I have, which is why I know that when people are deported they don't always take the kiddos with them. They send them here, and leave them here, because this is where they can have a better life. That should make you happy, but it won't.

well then they arent deported you idiot. that was what you were replying to; somebody claiming republicans want to deport American citizens.

you idiots have Attention Deficit Disorder or something; in your rush to sanctimonious clowns you're all over the map

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

poor race-bating loser; the "little brown ones" are the majorityy of illegals. but thanks for acknowledging that, and admitting you're a panderer!!

I know the numbers, and why you want the little brown ones to go...

All of them not just brown ones.
This has got to stop, it's insane.
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth | TIME.com
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth
Lured by U.S. citizenship for their children, thousands of Chinese women give birth annually in the States, supporting a thriving birth-tourism industry

 

[bedowin62]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

You cite Ann Coulter? She is a fucking moron. The 14th Amendment is 150 years old. It has never been construed other than to provide for citizenship to those born here.

but we both know it was only passed to help free slaves; by Republicans of course. the only one misconstruing it is you dummy

 

[bedowin62]

Idiot. You started by saying Trampon is not going to kill them.
I said trampons will rounded them up just like the NAZI did. Are there any difference? NAZI exterminate the Jews. Trampons eliminate the Hispanics that sounds very good.

First, one can tell from your 3rd grade name calling of Trump you are a troll. Second, Trump talked about deporting ILLEGALS, he said nothing of rounding up Hispanics. If we got rid of all then ILLEGALS, there would still be tens of millions of LEGAL Hispanics in this country. Third, Hitler first murdered the Jews in open public. That was bad for PR. He then made them slaves. He then sent them to concentration and death camps. He never deported anyone. I wish he did, but he was more hell bend on genocide. Trump is talking about deporting illegals and not genocide.

Please grow up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, he's merely suggesting obeying the law. It's hard to fathom how we've gotten to this point where millions of Americans are angry with him for suggesting such a thing. Obeying the law has become a blasphemous notion to them. That's how far we've fallen. But Trump just has to stay strong and persevere. He's got it right. And he does have support.

How is he talking about obeying the law when he wants to change the 14th Amendment? We have not fallen at all. We are stronger now than we were 7 years ago. Illegal immigration is not a problem. There are no longer scores of people trying to get in. The number of illegals has not grown in 7 years.

You obviously do not live near the border.

What would that have to do with the FACT that there is no net increase in immigrants? Nothing. The claims about "crime" are bullshit, fueled by racist assholes. Crime is lower in areas near the border.

because they all stay near the border right idiot?

why do you seem to enjoy making a fool of yourself?

 

[paddymurphy]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Natural born citizenship meant that persons born in the nation were citizens. Our laws were based on English common law, which provided the same.

The purpose of the natural born citizen clause is to protect the nation from foreign influence. Alexander Hamilton, a Convention delegate from New York, wrote in Federalist No. 68 about the care that must be taken in selecting the president: "Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils."[1]

St. George Tucker, an early federal judge, wrote in his 1803 edition of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, perhaps the leading authority for the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for the terms used in the Constitution, that the natural born citizen clause is "a happy means of security against foreign influence", and that "The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against."[8] In Vol. II, Chapter 10, Blackstone writes:[9]

The children of aliens, born here in England, are generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.

St. George Tucker, the editor, says this in a footnote:

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens.

Before Blackstone, the leading authority for the meaning of constitutional language is Edward Coke, who explains in Calvin's Case,[10] that a child born on the soil of England to a foreign national visiting the country who is not an invader or foreign diplomat is a "natural born subject" of England:

[A foreign national]... so long as he was within the King's protection; which [though] but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a [natural bond] he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject;

One of the drafters of the 14th amendment...
"John Bingham stated in the House of Representatives in 1862:

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words 'natural born citizen of the United states' appear in it, and the other provision appears in it that, "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.[23]

He reiterated his statement in 1866:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power, or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is his birthright and neither the Congress nor the States can justly or lawfully take it from him.[24]

In 1854, the U.S. Secretary of State, William Learned Marcy (1786–1857), wrote to John Y. Mason, the U.S. Minister to France:[27]

In reply to the inquiry ... whether "the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country of which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their father's country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States", I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship. There is not, however any United States statute containing a provision upon this subject, nor, so far as I am aware, has there been any judicial decision in regard to it.

In 1875, U.S. Attorney General Edwards Pierrepont was presented with a query from the Secretary of State, Hamilton Fish. A young man, named Arthur Steinkauler,[28] had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, his father returned to Germany with him and both had stayed there ever since. The father had relinquished his American citizenship. The young man was now 20 years old and about to be drafted into the Imperial German army. What was this young man's situation as a native-born American citizen? After studying the relevant legal authorities, Pierrepont wrote:[29]

Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States .... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.
In 1904, Frederick van Dyne (1861–1915), the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State (1900–1907) (and subsequently a diplomat), published a textbook, Citizenship of the United States, in which he said:[31]

There is no uniform rule of international law covering the subject of citizenship. Every nation determines for itself who shall, and who shall not, be its citizens.... By the law of the United States, citizenship depends, generally, on the place of birth; nevertheless the children of citizens, born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are also citizens.... The Constitution of the United States, while it recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President, Senators, and Representatives, contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in 1868; nor did Congress attempt to define it until the passage of the civil rights act, in 1866.... Prior to this time the subject of citizenship by birth was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed natural-born citizens.

It appears to have been assumed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. The Charming Betsy (1804) 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 64, 119, 2 L.Ed. 208, 226, that all persons born in the United States were citizens thereof. ... In M'Creery v. Somerville (1824) 9 Wheat. (22 U.S.) 354, 6 L.Ed. 109, which concerned the title to land in the state of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that state to an alien were native-born citizens of the United States. .... The Federal courts have almost uniformly held that birth in the United States, of itself, confers citizenship.

Treatises and academic publications[edit]
In an 1825 treatise, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, William Rawle (1759–1836), formerly the U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania (1791–1799), wrote that

The citizens of each state constituted the citizens of the United States when the Constitution was adopted. ... [He] who was subsequently born the citizen of a State, became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. .... Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that ... no person is eligible to the office of President unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.[32]

During an 1866 House debate James F. Wilson quoted Rawle's opinion, and also referred to the "general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations" saying

...and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments, are native-born citizens of the United States.[33]

 

[paddymurphy]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Although eligibility for the Presidency was not an issue in any 19th-century litigation, there have been a few cases that shed light on "natural-born citizen". The leading case is Lynch v. Clarke,[40] (mentioned by Attorney-General Bates in his 1862 opinion quoted above) which dealt with a New York law (similar to laws of other states at that time) that only a U.S. citizen could inherit real estate. The plaintiff, Julia Lynch, had been born in New York while her parents, both British, were briefly visiting the U.S., and shortly thereafter all three left for Britain and never returned to the U.S. The New York Chancery Court determined that, under common law and prevailing statutes, she was a U.S. citizen by birth and nothing had deprived her of that citizenship, notwithstanding that both her parents were not U.S. citizens or that British law might also claim her through her parents' nationality. In the course of the decision, the court cited the Constitutional provision and said:

Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.[41]

And further:

Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.[42]

 

[peach174]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Bullshit. Natural born citzenship

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

Our 14th Amendment was for Slaves not illegals who come here to give birth.

The 14th Amendment, you constitutionally illiterate asshole, was for all citizens. It prohibits states from denying due process or equal rights to any citizen, defined as anyone born in the United States.

You are the one ignoring the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof , so who is the illiterate asshole?

 

[bedowin62]

i cant be the only one who has noticed the more a leftard posts the less he actually says?

it's like they know they are losing the debate and the war of ideas; so they just start spamming

 

[paddymurphy]

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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."

Guide to the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court has ruled against you, more than 100 years ago, now what?

You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.

 

[paddymurphy]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Bullshit. Natural born citzenship

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

Our 14th Amendment was for Slaves not illegals who come here to give birth.

The 14th Amendment, you constitutionally illiterate asshole, was for all citizens. It prohibits states from denying due process or equal rights to any citizen, defined as anyone born in the United States.

You are the one ignoring the words subject to the jurisdiction thereof , so who is the illiterate asshole?

You are. The only foreigners not subject to the jurisdiction of the US when here are ambassadors and others here as representatives of their government. Ever hear of "diplomatic immunity." Any other foreign person here is subject to our jurisdiction.