Walker (and others) join Trump, calling for ending birthright citizenship

[Famous Mortimer]

Trump's immigration plan makes sense because he is concerned about wages being driven down and he favors some form of welfare state.

Walker is against the minimum wage though, so I'm having a hard time figuring out why he would oppose birthright citizenship. Best case scenario, it's pandering. Worst case, it's racism.

[mencken]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

The hypothetical pregnant mother did not have permission to reside in the United States, which presumably extends to the contents of her uterus as well. The passage of time does not change the situation. If this is punishing children for their parents' transgressions, than taking a necklace from an infant child that her mother stole from a jewelry store would fall under the same category.

[The Mikado]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Yes. It would require repealing the Fourteenth Amendment.

All you'd need to repeal in the amendment is this sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment: "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." Your amendment could read "Section 1: The clause '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' is hereby repealed. Section 2: Citizenship to the United state and of the State wherein they reside is dependent on[insert]. Section 3: Congress will have the power to make laws pertaining to citizenship."

Not to say it'd ever happen, but you wouldn't need to kill the entire 14th Amendment.

I think it's a horrible idea.

[DrScholl]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

The hypothetical pregnant mother did not have permission to reside in the United States, which presumably extends to the contents of her uterus as well. The passage of time does not change the situation. If this is punishing children for their parents' transgressions, than taking a necklace from an infant child that her mother stole from a jewelry store would fall under the same category.

That doesn't make much sense as a comparison. Recovering stolen merchandise from an infant is not the same as revoking or denying citizenship. By that logic, the infant would have to be charged with receiving and possession of stolen merchandise.

[Frodo]

Looks like the GOP has made its decision.  Democrats are going to have a 85-90% lock on the Latino vote for generations to come at this rate....    

[Famous Mortimer]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

Hypothetical children born in the US being denied American citizenship aren't being punished anymore than children born in Mexico being denied American citizenship are being punished. It's not a matter of punishment. They simply wouldn't be citizens. There's no penalty for them. They wouldn't be committing a crime, they wouldn't be put in jail. Their parents would be free to take them back to whatever country they have full citizenship in by virtue of their parenthood.

[ag]

Looks like the GOP has made its decision.  Democrats are going to have a 85-90% lock on the Latino vote for generations to come at this rate....    

Well, they are increasingly the White Party. Should change the color schemes on the maps

[ag]

I am noticing a bit of a realignment: a lot of the happiest posters here are Red avatars. Of course, no realistic Dem national candidate in his or her right mind  would be proposing any of this in the foreseable future. I really think it would be neat if these gentlemen were to find their natural home in the Republican party. If and when they switch, my respect for the Democratic party would, most definitely, substantially increase.

Of course, I am a Mexican

[/]

If I'm a fetus in conservative run America, I'm begging to be aborted because apparently my civil rights are all downhill from there.

Deep

[Likely Voter]

I really think this is a critical moment for the GOP. Birthright citizenship has been a fringe issue in some conservative circles but others on the right have been opposed to ending it, including the Cato Institute and Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform. One of the reasons is because ending the simple born = citizen formula would force the creation of a new and expensive federal bureaucracy to determine who is in and out of the club.

Back in 2013 the GOP 'Autopsy' of the 2012 election had only one policy proposal, adopt comprehensive immigration reform because it is a gateway to getting back non-white votes. Marco Rubio was dubbed the 'savior of the party' as he joined with Graham and McCain to push it through the Senate. But then things changed and that idea slowly died away and even Rubio backed away from his own bill. Now the leading candidate is calling for mass deportations and has brought up a policy idea (ending birthright citizenship) that had been limited to the likes of Peter King and Louie Gohmert.....The GOP is on the brink of the term 'anchor babies' coming up in a GOP debate seen by 20M+ people. 

[Mehmentum]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

The hypothetical pregnant mother did not have permission to reside in the United States, which presumably extends to the contents of her uterus as well. The passage of time does not change the situation. If this is punishing children for their parents' transgressions, than taking a necklace from an infant child that her mother stole from a jewelry store would fall under the same category.

Well, you've demonstrated that its certainly alright to deport a fetus along with pregnant woman.  At least if you hold a pro-choice position on abortion, a fetus is considered 'part of' the mother, and therefore your logic applies.  Of course, if you're pro-life and consider a fetus to be it's own person, you might have some difficulty even getting that far, but that's not really the point.

However, once the baby is born, it is no longer a content of it's mother's uterus but its own person, with its own rights.

[mencken]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

The hypothetical pregnant mother did not have permission to reside in the United States, which presumably extends to the contents of her uterus as well. The passage of time does not change the situation. If this is punishing children for their parents' transgressions, than taking a necklace from an infant child that her mother stole from a jewelry store would fall under the same category.

Well, you've demonstrated that its certainly alright to deport a fetus along with pregnant woman.  At least if you hold a pro-choice position on abortion, a fetus is considered 'part of' the mother, and therefore your logic applies.  Of course, if you're pro-life and consider a fetus to be it's own person, you might have some difficulty even getting that far, but that's not really the point.

However, once the baby is born, it is no longer a content of it's mother's uterus but its own person, with its own rights.

I am pro-choice, but that is irrelevant to this issue.

The implication here is that merely by being born, someone gains the privileges of citizenship of the United States, regardless of how they came to be in the United States, which is a preposterous proposition.

[Kingpoleon]

Walker has been attacked by Ted Cruz on this before, IIRC. I knew he wasn't very establishment since the "no abortion no matter what" moment.

Walker and Trump, and maybe Ben Carsin, are the only ones who would do this. Huckabee wouldn't dare offend the "American sensibilities".

[Mehmentum]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

I know nothing about your or any other poster's personal circumstances, as you are just a blue map of Connecticut as far as I know.

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

The hypothetical pregnant mother did not have permission to reside in the United States, which presumably extends to the contents of her uterus as well. The passage of time does not change the situation. If this is punishing children for their parents' transgressions, than taking a necklace from an infant child that her mother stole from a jewelry store would fall under the same category.

Well, you've demonstrated that its certainly alright to deport a fetus along with pregnant woman.  At least if you hold a pro-choice position on abortion, a fetus is considered 'part of' the mother, and therefore your logic applies.  Of course, if you're pro-life and consider a fetus to be it's own person, you might have some difficulty even getting that far, but that's not really the point.

However, once the baby is born, it is no longer a content of it's mother's uterus but its own person, with its own rights.

I am pro-choice, but that is irrelevant to this issue.

The implication here is that merely by being born, someone gains the privileges of citizenship of the United States, regardless of how they came to be in the United States, which is a preposterous proposition.

Its really not.

Merely by being born?  Being born is the beginning of a person's life, that's a momentous point in every person's life.  It makes perfect sense that people gain citizenship to the country that they were born into.

What doesn't make sense is judging children based on their parent's actions.  You insist that because a child's parents aren't citizens, that the child can not be.  But why must this be the case?  You don't really offer up reason why.

The parents are illegal immigrants here because they immigrated illegally.  The child isn't an illegal immigrant.  It didn't immigrate here, it was born here.  Is that preposterous?  (that's a hypothetical question, it isn't.)

Side note: you made the pro-life/pro-choice distinction important by bringing up 'the contents of her uterus'.  (Which I then rebutted with the fact that once born, a child isn't a part of her uterus).  To spell it out very clearly, pro-choice people consider the contents of a woman's uterus as a part of the woman, pro-life people tend to consider the contents of a woman's uterus as it's own person.  But like I said, that's not really the point.

[SteveRogers]

Wow, conservatives sure do respect the constitution. You know, except for the parts that don't further their political agenda.

[eric82oslo]

Will this require a constitutional amendment??

Only if one considers the spawn of foreign nationals to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (A contradiction in terms)

I guess that makes me a "spawn of foreign nationals", considering that neither of my parents were citizens when I was born in America? What party are you part of, anyways? Millard Fillmore's Know-Nothings?


I just lost a ton of respect for Walker.

Me too. Basically nothing that Walker has ever said in his campaign so far has impressed me. He just seems stupid, incredibly stupid. Like an all out moron idiot. Even Trump has way more brains than him!

[Fuzzy Bear]

This issue of citizenship is primarily an issue of citizenship of immigrants from Mexico and Latin America, because it is these immigrants who are most likely to have children born in America to folks who are not legally allowed to be in America.  This issue has arose because of a large number of poor folks crossing our borders illegally for the purpose of having their child born in the United States, so that child can enjoy the benefits of the safety net American meant for its citizens, and not those illegally here. 

The practice of illegal immigrants DELIBERATELY having children while in the US is, in fact, the emotional blackmailing of decent Americans.  It forces folks to choose between sanctioning social welfare services for the blameless child (who is now an American citizen) while rewarding a parent who DELIBERATELY chose to exploit both America's laws and America's generosity, versus taking the hard line of revoking birthright citizenship, and the unpredictable consequences of that act.  Our goodness is being manipulated, because once a child is an American citizen, it makes it hard to deport the parents.  It is a system that rewards illegal immigration of those illegal immigrants who are fortunate enough to be able to have their child born in the United States.

This issue is just another way of how the goodness of America is exploited by folks who don't give a crap about America beyond what they think they can get out of her.  It's like the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and others gaining access to so much of the workings of our government through the Freedom of Information Act.  It's the same as the demands that we rebuild nations that we invaded and liberated from evil dictators, who looted their national treasuries.  It happens all the time.  What can be done in this case.

One thing we CAN do is state, unequivocally, that those folks who sneak into our country and then have children in America are NOT the noble, heroic parents they are portrayed to be.  They are manipulative emotional blackmailers seeking social welfare benefits meant for American citizens, and they know this, and they don't care.  And we ought to punish, with our votes, politicians who won't be honest about this.  These illegal aliens aren't noble folks; they're folks who seek to take advantage of our system, as opposed to attempting to emigrate legally.

I don't know if Trump's plan for immigration is a good one.  I'm skeptical of tinkering with the Constitution, and this would require tinkering.  But it's not too much to ask our politicians to unequivocally state that illegal immigration, particularly when it involves the illegal entry for the sole purpose of having an American-born child, is wrong, selfish, and manipulative.  There's nothing noble about it.  And it's not too much to expect our politicians to enforce our immigration laws to the point of indicting public officials who deliberately refuse to enforce the laws our Congress has made, and setting up "Sanctuary Cities".  These are modest proposals to at least enable folks to regain a "rule of Law" perspective on this issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That would require 2/3rds of each chamber of Congress, and 3/4ths of the state to vote to repeal that part of the 14th amendment.

Unless we'd do what we did with the 4th amendment, and act as if it no longer exists.

[jimrtex]

The practice of birthright citizenship goes back to the beginning of the country, i.e., it was implicitly enshrined by the Founding Fathers. I don't see it becoming a litmus test.

Birthright citizenship is a relic from colonial times. It has no place in modern-day America.

Your trolling has gone too far, unless you seriously intend to argue that I should not be a citizen, considering that neither of my parents had been naturalised when I was born, or consider me "foreign spawn".

If your parents were permanent residents and subsequently were naturalized while you were a minor, you would have been covered by their naturalization, the same as any (hypothetical) siblings who had been born abroad.  Or if you had reached majority, you could been have naturalized in your own right.

Had your parents departed the USA when you were three, why should you be a US citizen, but your older brother, born before your parents resided in the United States, or your younger sister, born after they had left not be US citizens?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

This is another example of Walker trying to out conservative everyone by taking far right positions on the issues.

[jimrtex]

In any case, I fail to see why opposition to granting citizenship to those who do not even have permission for residency merits such righteous indignation.

You are punishing children for their parent's perceived transgressions.  How would a newborn even get permission to be a resident in the United States?

The answer to that hypothetical question is that they don't need to.  Our constitution makes clear that if this country is your birthplace, you have a right to call it home.  Being born here is 'permission' enough, and that is how it should be.

If the parents had a visa, any minor children who had immigrated with them would be covered under the parent's visa.  The parents could add the newborn child to that coverage.

If the parents were naturalized while the children were minors, the children would be covered by the naturalization, just as happens now if the children were not born in the USA.  If the children reach majority, they could be granted a visa in their own right, and become naturalized themselves.

[Likely Voter]

Naturally earlier today Bobby 'hey remember me' Jindal tweeted out his support for ending birthright citizenship. And in the past Kasich, Graham, Paul and Santorum have also said they want it to end.

As for Jeb 'coming to this country is an act of love' Bush, well he also seems to be on board with the war against anchor babies, but he is concerned about the legal logistics...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically Bush is saying "Trump has the right idea, it just isn't practical (for now)"


Side note, now I am curious to know what are the other 9 things Bush hates in the Constitution.

[ag]

The funny thing is that the practice of giving birth in the US to gain citizenship is, of course, common precisely among the rich Mexicans, with a visa and all. I know of a lot of people who did that: and, without exception, these are among the wealthiest people I know. Urbane, English-speaking, comfortably Mexican, frequently back home after years studying in the US themselves. They are not planning to migrate to the US at all: they are just doing this for convenience. Flying to Houston business class, etc.

And, of course, that is very natural. A poor migrant woman has no clue how to negotiate the US healthcare, even if she dares to cross the border pregnant. It is very difficult for her to do any planning that is implicit in giving birth in the US. And an illegal border crossing is not the easiest thing for a pregnant woman to do anyway. Even for most middle class women, even those with a US visa, this is not a very easy thing to decide for: at the very least, doing it in a way that is not damaging to a child is costly, and those costs few can (or want to) afford. This is for the rich, really.

[RINO Tom]

Wow, conservatives sure do respect the constitution. You know, except for the parts that don't further their political agenda.

No partisan respects the Constitution when it doesn't further his or her political agenda, sadly.

With that said, this is a terrible idea.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, conservatives sure do respect the constitution. You know, except for the parts that don't further their political agenda.

No partisan respects the Constitution when it doesn't further his or her political agenda, sadly.

With that said, this is a terrible idea.

No one in power respects the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment, what happened to it? OK, now I sound like Rand Paul, I'd better go shower.