Well, the Constitution uses the word, "born" not "conceived."
Not that anybody in Washington cares much what it says.
Trump's comments - NBC and Univision reaction
- Thread starter Bazza
- Start date
Not that anybody in Washington cares much what it says.
We would probably need to separate the issues of existing anchor babies from potential future anchor babies. Citizenship has already been granted. It would be impractical to revoke it.
One thing that has come out of the Trump candidacy, there is apparently more objection to illegal immigration than anybody previously thought.
One thing that has come out of the Trump candidacy, there is apparently more objection to illegal immigration than anybody previously thought.
Yeah, I would say it is impossible, without a Constitutional amendment. I don't see how you can retroactively apply such an ex post facto law/EO, unless the provision denying citizenship was made explicitly ex post facto. (“All children born to people in the United States illegally at the time of their birth shall not be citizens of the United States.”) I personally would go further. Not only would I like to declare children born to illegal immigrant parents not US citizens at birth, I would declare them permanently ineligible for US citizenship and their parents as well. They should never be allowed to become US citizens.
I certainly am outraged by it. I believe that the inability (both physically and procedurally) to control immigration is an existential threat to the United States.
If an employee presents a fake ID to an employer and the employer declines to hire someone he believes is an illegal alien (of Hispanic descent, but not hired because of his immigration status), he will run to the Justice Department, and Justice will investigate, find a disparate impact of Hispanic workers, (funny how, Justice never gets upset that an employer is not hiring enough US citizens) and therefore violates whatever twisted false interpretation of the Constitution that Justice chooses to inflict on US citizens.
Or, the illegal immigrant can run to a Federal court who will decide the case based on whatever personal whim the judge takes for law.
Any serious immigration reform has to seriously deal with the republic’s implacable enemies in DoJ and the Federal courts.
Only if you think reality is what is parroted on the mainstream media's networks. Believe it or not, there is a truckload of LEGALLY HERE Hispanics who feel the same way, but you'll never see that mentioned on NBC or its partners in crime.
It will never cease to amaze me how it is solely the Republican Party who is so "xenophobic" and 'racist' in the reporting - and yet Obama has deported more illegals than any other President and gets a free pass, if you'll pardon the pun.
At birth. If it was at conception, then they would be citizens of the country in which they were conceived.
That is, I would assume that if they were conceived in, say Mexico, then they would automatically become Mexican citizens. Of course I don't know how the citizenship laws read or what are the requirements for citizenship in those other countries.
I believe it, people tend to dislike those who butt in line regardless of what the line is for.
Illegals are worse. They not only don't have to stand in line, or have to pay an admittance fee, but seem to get paid for entering through the back door!
Proving the birth location is a lot easier than proving the conception location, unless you have video.
It's not surprising that the masses find illegal immigration to be a top issue. What surprises me is that no candidate other than Trump seems to be taking that issue and running with it.
It's not surprising that the masses find illegal immigration to be a top issue. What surprises me is that no candidate other than Trump seems to be taking that issue and running with it.
This really doesn't surprise me. Why? Because nobody wants to be called a "racist," the weapon of choice.
Trump sits there saying whatever comes to mind figuring, "Hey, if you don't like it, I'm still a billionaire with plenty to do."
I will admit one thing I think is amusing in the interpretation of all of this: when HILLARY polls well, it's because people WANT her as President, but when TRUMP polls well even the Nate Silver's of the world go out of their way to try and explain why it doesn't count. Make no mistake: it is WAY too early to think any poll is real at this point. But MOST of them are based upon name recognition anyway. In 1987 - right after Gary Hart dropped out - Jesse Jackson became the leader in the polls. It was so frightening even the news media went out of its way to tell us Jackson wasn't "really" the leader.
Why was Jackson in the lead? Simple: he was the best-known candidate. In June 1987, he had 18% of the Iowa caucus vote in a field of six. (The recent article comparing Trump with Bachmann is Iowa is laughably absurd - Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll because she was from Waterloo, IA, served in Minnesota, and was known by the locals better than the others in the GOP 2012 Clown Car. Comparing Trump's success to Bachmann's is absurd on its face).
So who knows? The person you want to be ON DECEMBER 1 in Iowa is "the best alternative to Trump."
I can't say for sure I know now who that will be.
I think it's because all the other candidates, like most of their fellow Republicans, have taken the cowardly position of not wanting to rock the political boat. They think that once they lose an election, it's because they didn't take the more liberal approach, so from that point forward they always cave to the liberal platform. When in truth, they would be much better off by standing up to their opponents and doing what they were elected to do in the first place, which is to maintain the Conservative stance that they took in their election campaigns.
Should entitlement programs also be expressly constitutionally limited to citizens?
I would favor such an approach. I would raise the taxes/fees/contributions, and deny them the benefits in an effort to get illegals to go home.
I would favor giving illegals "patch them up" level of care at emergency rooms, and tell them, "you need to get home for further care because this is going to kill you and you can't get that care here."
I would make children of illegals pay double the international tuition rate to go to American colleges and universities.
I would impose fines on US employers of illegals so high the fines would take their breath away.
The totality is not hatred for illegals in the US (I wish them a safe return home), but the target audience is those considering coming to the US illegally. I want them to realize it is not such a good deal.
I haven't read the whole thread, but has he detailed how he's going to force Mexico to pay for his wall?
Personally, I don't believe anything he says, mainly because all of his cardinal points are complete reversals of positions he took not so many years ago. One thing you can say about the Pauls - they are consistent. Well, the father more than the son...
Has he DETAILED how he's going to deport ALL illegal immigrants? Looks like all politicians don't want to give SPECIFICS of any of their hot air.
Somebody in the office said that he (Trump) planned to add some kind of tax or fee to remittances (money wired out of the country). If true, that's more like making the illegal immigrants pay for it than it is making Mexico pay for it.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
