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

[seanNJ9]

So, has it been discussed who this would target? are current anchor babies (like me) born in 1987 grandfathered in? lol Both my parents never actually became U.S. Citizens.

[Simfan34]

So, has it been discussed who this would target? are current anchor babies (like me) born in 1987 grandfathered in? lol Both my parents never actually became U.S. Citizens.

I doubt it would strip citizenship from anyone who already has it.

[dudeabides]

Trump's supporters are happy (pictured below) Walker is converting to Trumpism....

[Likely Voter]

Ok, apparently Trump's position is even crazier than imagined. On O'Reilly he argued that people who are currently deemed to be citizens but are children of 'illegals' are not actually citizens, and so they will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. O'Reilly pointed out that there is this pesky 14th Amendment but Trump said that his lawyers say that wont be a problem. Trump dismissed the notion of a constitutional amendment and said he preferred to just go ahead and de-citizen the people and deport them.

Trump also scoffed at the notion that the mass deportations of millions would require due process or tie up the courts. Seriously. I think Reince Preibus may just shoot himself if this goes on much longer.

Watch it...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

[Mr. Morden]

Ok, apparently Trump's position is even crazier than imagined. On O'Reilly he argued that people who are currently deemed to be citizens but are children of 'illegals' are not actually citizens, and so they will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. O'Reilly pointed out that there is this pesky 14th Amendment but Trump said that his lawyers say that wont be a problem. Trump dismissed the notion of a constitutional amendment and said he preferred to just go ahead and de-citizen the people and deport them.

Trump also scoffed at the notion that the mass deportations of millions would require due process or tie up the courts. Seriously. I think Reince Preibus may just shoot himself if this goes on much longer.

Watch it...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

Seems like a bad strategy for the party to take.  Here's a quote from a Romney supporter lamenting Mitt's hardline immigration stance in 2012, and how it cost him votes:

http://politicalwire.com/2015/08/18/flashback-quote-of-the-day-18/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh wait, I didn't mention which Romney supporter said that, did I?  Turns out it was Donald Trump (speaking in November 2012).

[ag]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

[The Mikado]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

"We need a big, beautiful wall." Oh, Trump.   This wall will be the most luxurious wall in the world. Ever hear of the Great Wall of China? No one will care once they see the Great Wall of Trump.

[SteveRogers]

Ok, apparently Trump's position is even crazier than imagined. On O'Reilly he argued that people who are currently deemed to be citizens but are children of 'illegals' are not actually citizens, and so they will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. O'Reilly pointed out that there is this pesky 14th Amendment but Trump said that his lawyers say that wont be a problem. Trump dismissed the notion of a constitutional amendment and said he preferred to just go ahead and de-citizen the people and deport them.

Trump also scoffed at the notion that the mass deportations of millions would require due process or tie up the courts. Seriously. I think Reince Preibus may just shoot himself if this goes on much longer.

Watch it...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

Well these are the same lawyers who thought spousal rape didn't exist, so I'm not shocked that they haven't read any of the constitution.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

A hard line against illegal immigration is what Republican Primary voters want.

IF the GOP had pushed construction of the Border Fence, IF the GOP had pressured the Justice Department to prosecute Mayors who ignore Federal Law and set up "Sanctuary Cities", and IF folks with children born here in the US were deported after giving birth, with the mother choosing between giving the child up for adoption or the child returning home to the country the mother came from, most folks would think something was being done.  The disconnect on this issue between talk and action is huge.

I believe that a lot of anger from Hispanics toward the GOP would cease if the GOP would stop doing other things, such as pushing the "English as the official language" nonsense and lamenting constantly how nowadays folks have to "press 1 for English", etc.  That's the part that DOES very much reflect racial/ethnic bigotry and is wrong.  But such a step would need to also be accompanied by immigration practices that encourage the ASSIMILATION of immigrants, as was the case with our Ellis Island immigrants.

[dudeabides]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

A hard line against illegal immigration is what Republican Primary voters want.

IF the GOP had pushed construction of the Border Fence, IF the GOP had pressured the Justice Department to prosecute Mayors who ignore Federal Law and set up "Sanctuary Cities", and IF folks with children born here in the US were deported after giving birth, with the mother choosing between giving the child up for adoption or the child returning home to the country the mother came from, most folks would think something was being done.  The disconnect on this issue between talk and action is huge.

I believe that a lot of anger from Hispanics toward the GOP would cease if the GOP would stop doing other things, such as pushing the "English as the official language" nonsense and lamenting constantly how nowadays folks have to "press 1 for English", etc.  That's the part that DOES very much reflect racial/ethnic bigotry and is wrong.  But such a step would need to also be accompanied by immigration practices that encourage the ASSIMILATION of immigrants, as was the case with our Ellis Island immigrants.

51% of GOP voters polled support a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally.

I think sanctuary cities should be defunded, but deporting people costs $12,500 per person. We should do everything we can to make sure the border is secure but the reality is, we are doing a good job. Illegal border crossings are down because we doubled border agents under the previous administration. Up until somewhat recently, I was for building a wall. I have since changed my position because of the success of deploying more national guard to the border and because of tunnels that can be built under the wall. My position is similar to Jeb Bush's - I'm against the Dream Act which he is for, but I'm for a pathway to legal status, a temporary worker program, and employment verification. The bill Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez, and others were a part of a few years back was a good bill EXCEPT for it skipped over a pathway to legal status right for citizenship. If that language had been changed, which should have been negotiated, it would be a good bill. But there are some, such as Ted Cruz, who do not look at the facts or work well with others. They just play politics.

I don't speak Spanish or any language. I believe that english should be the official language of government, but I also don't have a problem if people communicate in other languages. If a private company wants to have multiple language options, that is fine. I don't believe it is bigoted to want English to be the official language of the United States government, what is bigoted is to demonize people because english is their second language. Frankly, to me, this is a non-issue. I agree with you, some spend too much time on this issue.

In my mind, the key to winning hispanic votes is by showing up, listening, and then talking. It's not only proposing policies, it's understanding that this nation has multiple cultures, that people from South America have a unique culture, and I think elected officials should be exposed to the concerns and cultures of all people. You have to treat people with dignity and not just as potential voters. You have to show that you have heart, not just mind.

[ag]

I don't speak Spanish or any language.

Apparently, not even English.

[ag]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

A hard line against illegal immigration is what Republican Primary voters want.

Sure. But, I guess, they also want to win the general election. And Trump is doing his best to inflame Hispanics and make sure their voting patterns approximate those of the Blacks.

[jimrtex]

Ok, apparently Trump's position is even crazier than imagined. On O'Reilly he argued that people who are currently deemed to be citizens but are children of 'illegals' are not actually citizens, and so they will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. O'Reilly pointed out that there is this pesky 14th Amendment but Trump said that his lawyers say that wont be a problem. Trump dismissed the notion of a constitutional amendment and said he preferred to just go ahead and de-citizen the people and deport them.

Trump also scoffed at the notion that the mass deportations of millions would require due process or tie up the courts. Seriously. I think Reince Preibus may just shoot himself if this goes on much longer.

Watch it...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.

O'Reilly argued, "I am loud and have my own TV show, therefore the courts will interpret the 14th Amendment as my superficial reading of the Constitution would have it."

[jimrtex]

So, has it been discussed who this would target? are current anchor babies (like me) born in 1987 grandfathered in? lol Both my parents never actually became U.S. Citizens.

Were your parents legal immigrants?

Congress may also pass naturalization laws.  The USA grants non-14th Amendment citizenship to 10s of thousands of newborns every year.

[ag]

Ok, apparently Trump's position is even crazier than imagined. On O'Reilly he argued that people who are currently deemed to be citizens but are children of 'illegals' are not actually citizens, and so they will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. O'Reilly pointed out that there is this pesky 14th Amendment but Trump said that his lawyers say that wont be a problem. Trump dismissed the notion of a constitutional amendment and said he preferred to just go ahead and de-citizen the people and deport them.

Trump also scoffed at the notion that the mass deportations of millions would require due process or tie up the courts. Seriously. I think Reince Preibus may just shoot himself if this goes on much longer.

Watch it...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.
"

To the best of my understanding, "not subject to US jurisdiction" means they could not be tried by the US laws in US courts.  That, in fact, has been the interpretation historically: diplomats, occupying troops, etc. By repeatedly bringing these people to court for crimes committed in the US, the US has, most clearly, asserted its jurisdiction. Of course, it would be possible to pass a law renouncing jurisdiction in the future, but how would that affect the cases of people who were, clearly, born under the US jurisdiction? Or else, what is the meaning of being "subject to jurisdiction"?

[Pyro]

The xenophobia of the Republican Party knows no bounds. First assigning "illegal" to a human being, then building a ridiculous wall to further reinforce an already stringent border, and now all of these 'undesirables' are going to be magically whisked away to some other land. Just wait until Trump realizes how expensive it is to deport people, then he'll be advocating the gas chambers.

[SteveRogers]

Ok, apparently Trump's position is even crazier than imagined. On O'Reilly he argued that people who are currently deemed to be citizens but are children of 'illegals' are not actually citizens, and so they will have their citizenship revoked and be deported. O'Reilly pointed out that there is this pesky 14th Amendment but Trump said that his lawyers say that wont be a problem. Trump dismissed the notion of a constitutional amendment and said he preferred to just go ahead and de-citizen the people and deport them.

Trump also scoffed at the notion that the mass deportations of millions would require due process or tie up the courts. Seriously. I think Reince Preibus may just shoot himself if this goes on much longer.

Watch it...
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.

O'Reilly argued, "I am loud and have my own TV show, therefore the courts will interpret the 14th Amendment as my superficial reading of the Constitution would have it."

But illegal immigrants are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so loud TV host is obviously right and Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on for the reasons that ag states.

Plus, even if Trump's interpretation of the 14th amendment were plausible, federal law indepently establishes  that children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, so yes Trump's plan would in fact still entail revoking existing citizenship. (Yes, the statute mirrors the language of the constitutional provision, but when every federal agency has always understood that as granting you citizenship, guess what, you're a citizen and that can't be taken away without due process).

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Trump is really going off the deep end, he must be stopped before we lose the Hispanic vote forever. This is a losing issue for himself and us as a party.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

A hard line against illegal immigration is what Republican Primary voters want.

IF the GOP had pushed construction of the Border Fence, IF the GOP had pressured the Justice Department to prosecute Mayors who ignore Federal Law and set up "Sanctuary Cities", and IF folks with children born here in the US were deported after giving birth, with the mother choosing between giving the child up for adoption or the child returning home to the country the mother came from, most folks would think something was being done.  The disconnect on this issue between talk and action is huge.

I believe that a lot of anger from Hispanics toward the GOP would cease if the GOP would stop doing other things, such as pushing the "English as the official language" nonsense and lamenting constantly how nowadays folks have to "press 1 for English", etc.  That's the part that DOES very much reflect racial/ethnic bigotry and is wrong.  But such a step would need to also be accompanied by immigration practices that encourage the ASSIMILATION of immigrants, as was the case with our Ellis Island immigrants.

51% of GOP voters polled support a pathway to citizenship for those here illegally.

I think sanctuary cities should be defunded, but deporting people costs $12,500 per person. We should do everything we can to make sure the border is secure but the reality is, we are doing a good job. Illegal border crossings are down because we doubled border agents under the previous administration. Up until somewhat recently, I was for building a wall. I have since changed my position because of the success of deploying more national guard to the border and because of tunnels that can be built under the wall. My position is similar to Jeb Bush's - I'm against the Dream Act which he is for, but I'm for a pathway to legal status, a temporary worker program, and employment verification. The bill Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez, and others were a part of a few years back was a good bill EXCEPT for it skipped over a pathway to legal status right for citizenship. If that language had been changed, which should have been negotiated, it would be a good bill. But there are some, such as Ted Cruz, who do not look at the facts or work well with others. They just play politics.

I don't speak Spanish or any language. I believe that english should be the official language of government, but I also don't have a problem if people communicate in other languages. If a private company wants to have multiple language options, that is fine. I don't believe it is bigoted to want English to be the official language of the United States government, what is bigoted is to demonize people because english is their second language. Frankly, to me, this is a non-issue. I agree with you, some spend too much time on this issue.

In my mind, the key to winning hispanic votes is by showing up, listening, and then talking. It's not only proposing policies, it's understanding that this nation has multiple cultures, that people from South America have a unique culture, and I think elected officials should be exposed to the concerns and cultures of all people. You have to treat people with dignity and not just as potential voters. You have to show that you have heart, not just mind.

For once I actually agree with dudeabides on something....that's scary.

[jimrtex]

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.
"

To the best of my understanding, "not subject to US jurisdiction" means they could not be tried by the US laws in US courts.  That, in fact, has been the interpretation historically: diplomats, occupying troops, etc. By repeatedly bringing these people to court for crimes committed in the US, the US has, most clearly, asserted its jurisdiction. Of course, it would be possible to pass a law renouncing jurisdiction in the future, but how would that affect the cases of people who were, clearly, born under the US jurisdiction? Or else, what is the meaning of being "subject to jurisdiction"?

Was this the understanding at the time the Amendment was ratified?  Has it, in fact, been interpreted that way?  Court cases?

[jimrtex]

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.

O'Reilly argued, "I am loud and have my own TV show, therefore the courts will interpret the 14th Amendment as my superficial reading of the Constitution would have it."

But illegal immigrants are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so loud TV host is obviously right and Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on for the reasons that ag states.

Plus, even if Trump's interpretation of the 14th amendment were plausible, federal law indepently establishes  that children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, so yes Trump's plan would in fact still entail revoking existing citizenship. (Yes, the statute mirrors the language of the constitutional provision, but when every federal agency has always understood that as granting you citizenship, guess what, you're a citizen and that can't be taken away without due process).

I'm not going to search the entire US Code to prove that there is no such provision.  Cite the code section.

[Mehmentum]

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.
"

To the best of my understanding, "not subject to US jurisdiction" means they could not be tried by the US laws in US courts.  That, in fact, has been the interpretation historically: diplomats, occupying troops, etc. By repeatedly bringing these people to court for crimes committed in the US, the US has, most clearly, asserted its jurisdiction. Of course, it would be possible to pass a law renouncing jurisdiction in the future, but how would that affect the cases of people who were, clearly, born under the US jurisdiction? Or else, what is the meaning of being "subject to jurisdiction"?

Was this the understanding at the time the Amendment was ratified?  Has it, in fact, been interpreted that way?  Court cases?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SteveRogers]

That is not what Trump argues.  He argued that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and that their children were therefore not US citizens, under the 14th Amendment. Since they are not citizens, their citizenship would not be revoked.

O'Reilly argued, "I am loud and have my own TV show, therefore the courts will interpret the 14th Amendment as my superficial reading of the Constitution would have it."

But illegal immigrants are obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so loud TV host is obviously right and Trump doesn't have a leg to stand on for the reasons that ag states.

Plus, even if Trump's interpretation of the 14th amendment were plausible, federal law indepently establishes  that children born on U.S. soil are U.S. citizens, so yes Trump's plan would in fact still entail revoking existing citizenship. (Yes, the statute mirrors the language of the constitutional provision, but when every federal agency has always understood that as granting you citizenship, guess what, you're a citizen and that can't be taken away without due process).

I'm not going to search the entire US Code to prove that there is no such provision.  Cite the code section.

8 U.S.C. § 1401- Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[hopper]

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

I think "The Left" cries as much as the hard-right cries when they don't get as much as they want of a specific policy that gets signs into law. Of course not all Dems on here are leftists. Some are Moderates too.

Of course no Dem would be proposing repealing the 14th amendment. Why would they? Most Latino's(including Mexicans) vote Dem anyway.

[Simfan34]

Frankly, at this point the preponderance of evidence seems to be that Trump's objective here is screwing the GOP and helping Hillary.

Personally, I agree. I mean, it's public knowledge Trump is running with Bill Clinton's personal blessing. Come on!