Donald Trump: No citizenship for illegal migrants' babies

[Viligant_Warrior]

The issue he has with revoking citizenship for children born in this country is that he would have to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment. That's not gonna happen.

As to deporting 11 million people (or 30 million, or however many there actually are), constitutional guarantees of due process apply. Each deportation will require a hearing, attorneys (the government pays for both sides of the argument), judges, courtroom time, etc. Processing that many people through deportation would take decades, and most would be allowed to stay.

He's taking a shotgun approach to a narrowly defined problem, wanting to shoot everybody in a crowd where only some are causing trouble.

We obviously need to identify and deport the felons. The rest need to repay any welfare they've received illegally, pay any back taxes, court fines for traffic and misdemeanors they may owe, pass a drug test, have a job, and -- because they jumped to the front of the line by coming in illegally -- not be granted citizenship until everyone from their country who got here legally has also been granted citizenship through the legitimate process.

Ironically, that plan is already out there. It is shared by Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 70% of Likely Republican Voters agree with the GOP presidential hopeful that the United States should build a wall along the Mexican border to help stop illegal immigration."

See here.

P.S. Most also oppose birthright citizenship.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

P.S. Most also oppose birthright citizenship.

We oppose it, absolutely. Nothing we can do about it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Mexico's immigration law: Mexico's Immigration Law

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
• Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
• The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

• Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
• Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
• Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says:

• “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
• Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
• Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

• A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
• Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

^ But, of course, they agitate for U.S. immigration law to be wholly open and unrestrained... lol. Total hypocrisy.

 

[Desdichado]

We oppose it, absolutely. Nothing we can do about it.

Because most of us are cowards who lack the moral courage to be the first to stand up to things like this.

The purpose of the Amendment process is to shift with times in the interest of preserving and protected the United States
as founded.


​It's high time that we do.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Because most of us are cowards who lack the moral courage to be the first to stand up to things like this.

The purpose of the Amendment process is to shift with times in the interest of preserving and protected the United States
as founded.


​It's high time that we do.

I find it interesting that we stand for strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution ...

... until such interpretation conflicts with what we want to do. No, Des, can't agree with this. The Amendment says what it says, and the only way to change it is to repeal it. Or pass another one countering that aspect of its interpretation.

Won't happen. Probably shouldn't. If it did, we would be denying everything we've stood for as a nation and as a people.

 

[Desdichado]

I find it interesting that we stand for strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution ...

... until such interpretation conflicts with what we want to do. No, Des, can't agree with this. The Amendment says what it says, and the only way to change it is to repeal it. Or pass another one countering that aspect of its interpretation.

Won't happen. Probably shouldn't. If it did, we would be denying everything we've stood for as a nation and as a people.

The irony of being a strict constructionist is that it does call for changes to the Constitution. There are amendments made to our Constitution that run contrary to the purpose of the Constitution either in whole or in part.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is one of these. So vague in its wording, so loose in its application, that it has done harm and good in equal parts.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

The irony of being a strict constructionist is that it does call for changes to the Constitution. There are amendments made to our Constitution that run contrary to the purpose of the Constitution either in whole or in part.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is one of these. So vague in its wording, so loose in its application, that it has done harm and good in equal parts.

Really, I find it difficult to understand how the Fourteenth Amendment runs contrary to the purpose of the Constitution as a whole. The original ten amendments established for individuals a concrete protection from aggressive government interference in their lives, but they didn't grant slaves those rights. In the long run, that was actually in opposition to the founding fathers' philosophy of freedom and liberty, the right to be left alone and the right to equal protection under the law.

Had the Amendment applied only to Negro ex-slaves and all blacks born thereafter, Congress would have continued to disadvantage Native Americans. Hannity's contention of "non-citizenship" for Native Americans on Fox News a month or so ago as he tried to illogically justify excluding "anchor babies" from citizenship ignores history, legal precedent, and facts. As I said on another thread, SCOTUS threw out the clause of the 1912 Immigration and Naturalization Act that tried to exclude Native Americans as citizens. I still haven't seen anyone try to explain how they could justify making the original inhabitants of this land "outsiders" in the grand scheme of personal and group rights.

For that same reason, excluding anchor babies can't be done. Period. The entire Constitution was written vaguely for the sole purpose of assuring a framework by which all future laws could be interpreted. When the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted numerous times in the last 150 years, the Supreme Court has always stated that the language of the Amendment cannot preclude anyone, regardless of parental citizenship, the right to be considered U.S. citizens.

Trump's ignorant comment was based in arrogance and hyperbole, and goes against Constitutional principle, ethics, and (again) legal precedent. The reality is, if we excluded anchor babies from citizenship, and included them in Trump's equally ignorant desire to deport all illegals, that would literally be the only thing the federal court system would do for twenty years or more. That's impossible irresponsible -- and my main issue with Trump is that most of what he says can be just as easily classified the same way.