Trump's comments - NBC and Univision reaction

[GrayTide]

Re: Say WHAT?

Really enjoyed your above post, Bill thanks. Just for grins, would you care to speculate who the bottom 8-10 candidates on the Republican side the party would force out if they decided to pursue this tack?

 

[CajunCrimson]

I would never count out Hillary, people like her do not lose.

2008......

 

[Bazza]

I've actually turned back in Trump's direction now after getting past his McCain remarks....I'm at the point where I'm enjoying the notion that we have someone in charge of the country who is not by trade a politician.

It also seems that those who are against Trump are those who make their living in government, politicians, or the media ( who I guess are also "involved" in politics).

Or liberals.....they don't like him too much either.

I also like that Dr. Carson is getting approval.

Regarding Hillary....IMHO, it's an embarrassment to our country that she is even a candidate for the highest office given the incompetence and deceit she is guilty of and she will NOT get the nomination.

 

[Tidewater]

2008......

I hear ya, but in 2008, everyone in the Democrat party got swept up in the "first black man in the White House" schtick.
If the Democrats dump Hillary, all the other Democrat candidates will be white guys and won't fire up the base the way Obama did (not on his merits, just on his race alone).

 

[CajunCrimson]

I hear ya, but in 2008, everyone in the Democrat party got swept up in the "first black man in the White House" schtick.
If the Democrats dump Hillary, all the other Democrat candidates will be white guys and won't fire up the base the way Obama did (not on his merits, just on his race alone).

I'm just not sure what everyone thinks Hillary has accomplished. The only election she ever won was the NY Senator race.....against a very flawed candidate. It was about the "surest" thing they could have given her.....and even then Lazio won 51 of 62 counties......in what a fairly close election....

I think people like her do lose.....they just have tons of others to cover it up ....and a media to congratulate her repeatedly.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm just not sure what everyone thinks Hillary has accomplished.

Well, she was born with two X chromosomes. What else does she need to have done?
That and she did a great job suppressing Bill's "bimbo eruptions" by attacking the women involved. That is an achievement, isn't it?

 

[Aledinho]

I would just like to point out that Trump's reason for running is the exact same as Duke Phillips from the critic.

It's time we had a politician that's not beholden to special interest. I'm a self made billionaire, and the only person who can bribe me is a bazillionaire.

Vote For Duke!

 

[Bazza]

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I'm just not sure what everyone thinks Hillary has accomplished.

Well, she has a better resume than when she ran in 2008, but you have a point. Then again, I have that question about a LOT of people who run for President.

1988
Al Gore - 39 years old and.....nothing but he finished third
Dan Quayle - 41 years old and...well, he had authored the Job Training Partnership Act but......
Jesse Jackson - not qualified but nobody would dare say so for the obvious reason

1992
Paul Tsongas - really?
Pat Buchanan - you've got to be kidding me
David Duke - not even worthy of comment

1996
Steve Forbes - uh, ok.....

2000
Alan Keyes - really?

2004
Howard Dean - but I'll admit I laughed every time I saw him
Wesley Clark - ........
John Edwards - how can you be a candidate for President when you refuse to run for your incumbent Senate seat because you're going to lose? Yet this stooge wound up VP nominee!!!

2008
Sarah Palin - sure, she had executive experience but that's like saying Benedict Arnold served in the military
Fred Thompson - how many times has this champion of the family values party been married? Three?
Rudy Giuliani - the frontrunner with no demonstrated capacity to lead anything relevant (seriously - how often is a mayor considered Presidential timber?)
Hillary Clinton - only qualification for the job is that she slept at the White House - so did a lot of women when she was out of town no doubt
Barack Obama - the fact he won doesn't make him any more qualified for the job than he already wasn't - the guy's resume would fit on a maple leaf
Mike Gravel - who even remembers this guy?
Dennis Kucinich - the Bernie Sanders of 2008 without relevant experience

2012
Jon Huntsman - this Democrat in Republican's clothing was the media's favorite Republican, which is why I despised him - four years of governing Utah might qualify you to serve on Romney's family's staff but really
Michele Bachmann - any comment necessary?

I can't say Hillary isn't qualified now that she's been Secretary of State - but lets' face it: she's NOT a very good candidate at all.

 

[Bamaro]

Question about birthright citizenship for illegals which Trump is against. Since the mother is here illegally, would it really take a constitutional amendment to end it or could a law or executive order end it?

 

[chanson78]

Question about birthright citizenship for illegals which Trump is against. Since the mother is here illegally, would it really take a constitutional amendment to end it or could a law or executive order end it?

From Wikipedia.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "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."

 

[Crimson1967]

Not that it will really matter, but Kasich picked up the endorsement of Robert Bentley today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TideEngineer08]

From Wikipedia.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "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."

I'm ok with it. My problem is the rampant illegal immigration. Stop that, and you stop the anchor babies. If someone immigrates here legally and has a child, I have no problem with it.

 

[Tidewater]

From Wikipedia.

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "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."

I believe Trump's argument is that a woman who is in the United States and one of said States) illegally is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," by virtue of being there illegally.

For this to have any effect, the Justice Department must be disbanded (or at least forbidden, under severe penalty of losing a cushy government job and going to jail) from investigating any case brought by an illegal who is denied US citizenship under such a pronouncement, and a direct denial to any Federal court of jurisdiction over such a case, with real teeth to the denial, such as an explicit threat of disestablishing any Federal court that agrees to hear such a case.
In other words, given the extreme centralization and usurpation of every question to the Federal level, any denial of citizenship to "anchor babies" would be undermined by the Justice Department and the Federal judiciary, unless the Constitution was amended. Even with a constitutional amendment, the Justice Department and Federal judiciary would find a way to thwart and undermine the Constitution because that is what they do to the Constitution as currently written.

 

[Bamaro]

I believe Trump's argument is that a woman who is in the United States and one of said States) illegally is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," by virtue of being there illegally.

For this to have any effect, the Justice Department must be disbanded (or at least forbidden, under severe penalty of losing a cushy government job and going to jail) from investigating any case brought by an illegal who is denied US citizenship under such a pronouncement, and a direct denial to any Federal court of jurisdiction over such a case, with real teeth to the denial, such as an explicit threat of disestablishing any Federal court that agrees to hear such a case.
In other words, given the extreme centralization and usurpation of every question to the Federal level, any denial of citizenship to "anchor babies" would be undermined by the Justice Department and the Federal judiciary, unless the Constitution was amended. Even with a constitutional amendment, the Justice Department and Federal judiciary would find a way to thwart and undermine the Constitution because that is what they do to the Constitution as currently written.

I wish that could be invoked. Anchor babies are one of the root problems caused by illegal immigration. Its the anchor baby issue that drives the dream act and breaking up of families issue among other things..

 

[Tidewater]

I wish that could be invoked. Anchor babies are one of the root problems caused by illegal immigration. Its the anchor baby issue that drives the dream act and breaking up of families issue among other things..

Yeah, the argument that children born to illegals are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a stretch, but it is certainly less crazy than some of the butt-hattery that the Federal government has advanced in the past. (e.g. "The Federal statute banning guns in school zones was pursuant to the power to regulate the value of interstate commerce, because kids who studied in schools where gun violence was possible might not study very well, and this might adversely impact their learning, which might, one day, limit their economic potential, which might have some effect on interstate commerce, therefor, the Federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce.")
The "victims" of an anti-anchor baby law or Executive Order would make a beeline to the Justice Department and/or the Federal courts, who would invariably annul any such law/EO. If we were to enact a constitutional amendment to make such a law/EO constitutional, then Justice/the Federal bench would annul the amendment as well. The Constitution is no barrier whatsoever to the Justice Department or the Federal judiciary.

As for the "breaking up families" BS, the only person "breaking up a family" is the parent coming to the US illegally to have an anchor baby. As currently envisioned, a pregnant illegal giving birth instantly has a US-citizen child. Fine. When apprehended, she goes to her country of origin. When the child is eighteen and wants to come "home" to the US, he/she may, but that has nothing to do with his/her illegal immigrant parents coming, at least in my view. The whole "breaking up families" schtick is a crock of bovine scatology, dreamed up by those who wish to undermine US immigration law.

 

[Tide1986]

Yeah, the argument that children born to illegals are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a stretch, but it is certainly less crazy than some of the butt-hattery that the Federal government has advanced in the past.

Demostrating that someone is a citizen of another country under that country's laws would seem to be the only way to make the "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" argument. If being a citizen of another country does not make one "not subject to" U.S. jurisdiction, I'm not sure what would. The clause becomes meaningless, which belies its inclusion in the first place.

 

[Tidewater]

Demostrating that someone is a citizen of another country under that country's laws would seem to be the only way to make the "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" argument. If being a citizen of another country does not make one "not subject to" U.S. jurisdiction, I'm not sure what would. The clause becomes meaningless, which belies its inclusion in the first place.

True. Impeccable logic.
It's just that neither the Justice Department, nor the Federal judiciary give a rip about logic or the Constitution. The decide what outcome they want (based on personal preferences or partisan political objectives), then mine the case law to find the justification for that position and present it as fact. And there is not much anyone can do about it, unless someone puts teeth into some statute to force these two renegade agencies to comply with the law. And I mean real teeth, like serious prison time for non-compliance. They are so insubordinate, as agencies, that some real muscle needs to be applied to them, or they will find a way to squirm out of their constraints, and go back to thwarting the law and the Constitution.

 

[Bamaro]

Obtaining anchor baby status is just another reward for illegal activity. Common sense should state that illegal activity should normally be punished, not rewarded.

 

[92tide]

and now the real question, do they become anchor babies at conception? or only after live birth?