Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles
Title: Trump: Deny citizenship to babies of people illegally in US
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/trump-deny-ci ... ly-us-074126250--election.html
Published: Aug 17, 2015
Author: Steven Braun
Post Date: 2015-08-17 08:27:54 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 26166
Comments: 101
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to deny citizenship to the babies of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as part of an immigration plan that emphasizes border security and deportation for millions.
He would also rescind Obama administration executive orders on immigration.
Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the U.S.
"They have to go," Trump said, adding: "What they're doing, they're having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows ... the baby's here."
Native-born children of immigrants — even those living illegally in the U.S. — have been automatically considered American citizens since the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868.
The odds of repealing the amendment's citizenship clause would be steep, requiring the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and support from three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures. Republicans in Congress have repeatedly failed since 2011 to pass bills aimed at ending "birthright citizenship." Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution.
"They're illegal," Trump said, describing native-born children of people living illegally in the US. "You either have a country or not."
Trump's remarks came as his campaign website posted his program for "immigration reform." Among its details: Making Mexico pay for a permanent border wall. Mandatory deportation of all "criminal aliens." Tripling the force of immigration officers by eliminating tax credit payments to immigrant families residing illegally in the U.S.
Trump said a tough deportation policy was needed because "there's definitely evidence" of crimes linked to immigrants living in the country illegally. He repeated comments he's made previously, noting that: "The good people can come back."
The New York businessman also said he would waste little time rescinding President Barack Obama's executive actions aimed at allowing as many as 3.7 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country because of their U.S.-born relatives. Obama's November 2014 actions were halted by temporary injunctions ordered by several federal courts in rulings challenging his executive powers to alter immigration policies without congressional approval. The cases could lead to the Supreme Court.
"We have to make a whole new set of standards," Trump said. "And when people come in, they have to come in legally."
Trump's plan was endorsed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who chairs a Senate subcommittee on immigration.
"This is exactly the plan America needs," Sessions said in a statement. "Crucially, this plan includes an emphasis on lifting struggling minority communities, including our immigrant communities, out of poverty, by preventing corporations from bringing in new workers from overseas to replace them and drive down wages."
Most other GOP candidates also back completing the border wall but differ over how to treat immigrant families already living in the U.S.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush recently released his own immigration plan, which calls for the use of forward bases and drones to guard the border, but also backing an eventual plan to legalize the status of immigrant families.
On Sunday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he would "finish the wall" but would then work to legalize 11 million immigrants now estimated to live in the U.S. illegally. He spoke on CBS' "Face the Nation."
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio worked with senators from both parties to develop a comprehensive plan in 2013 that would have legalized the status of many immigrant families. But Congress balked at the idea as tea party Republicans opposed the deal and Rubio has since backed away from his support. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
"Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution."
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (not the 14th amendment) to "consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces."
All this legislation is doing is defining the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It is not changing or amending anything.
Some may mention United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a child born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents was a U.S. citizen. True, BUT the parents were here legally.
The court has never ruled on the citizenship status of children born here to illegals.
#8. To: misterwhite (#5)
The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (not the 14th amendment) to "consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces."
This would be struck down as unconstitutional. It would be an amendment of the 14th Amendment, altering the conditions upon which citizenship is bestowed, as specified in the amendment. "All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," cannot be amended by legislation to add other conditions.
Replies to Comment # 8.
This would be struck down as unconstitutional.
It all depends on the opinions of five.
#23. To: nolu chan (#8)
"It would be an amendment of the 14th Amendment, altering the conditions upon which citizenship is bestowed"
Nope. All Congress is doing is interpreting the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
This is no different that the court interpreting "to regulate commerce" to include "to prohibit commerce".
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]