Trump on immigration

As with everything Trump, lots of wind with no details.

1. The Donald apparently wants to repeal that part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that grants citizenship to any child born in the United States. Setting aside how utterly un-American that proposition is....what are the chances he can make that happen? He would need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate to approve such a thing. In addition to support from 3/4 of the state legislatures in the country. Anybody want to offer an opinion of how likely that is to occur?

Right. It won't. Why is he talking about it?

2. Mandatory deportation for all persons in the country illegally. Including children who are US citizens per the 14th Amendment but whose parents are here illegally. Setting aside the utterly repugnant and abhorrent idea of arresting and deporting babies, kindergartners,1st graders, elderly people, and kids who have lived their whole lives in the United States and are getting ready to graduate from high school.... Let's see....we're talking about rounding up 11,500,000 people if the Department of Homeland Security's most recent estimate is correct. Anybody care to offer an opinion as to the logistics on how that will be accomplished?

Right. It won't. Why is he talking about it?

3. Trump insists that he will build a wall that will eliminate illegal immigration from Mexico. And, Mexico will pay for it. Uh huh.

Never happen. Why is he talking about it?

Because he knows that his idiotic and moronic constituency is disconnected from reality when it comes to their xenophobic viewpoints on immigration. In other words, they are conservative Republicans who thrive on fear, hatred, and intolerance.

I wonder that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, that any body in the US comprehended the concept of the "anchor baby". That being, a woman getting just one foot onto US soil before she drops a kid who is automatically a U.S. Citizen, making her and her Familly entitled to every handout from the Federal Government.

We had one other case in our History where an Amendment proved to be a bad idea. The 18th, which brought on Prohibition. After the Country realized the mistake, the 21st was ratified to correct this travesty.

Perhaps it is time to amend the Constitution in order to get rid of it's big flaw that was never what the Amendment was for in the first place. The 14th is not one of the originol Bill of Rights, so I consider it fair game.

Any body already here would still be a citizen. They would still be just as much a citizen as you or I. But we have to put the brakes on sooner or later. Now is as good as any time to start.

I don't even have to read the OP this time. Trump was not talking about immigration, he has never talked about immigration. Trump and many on the right are talking about criminal acts, that is ILLEGAL immigration or the invasion of this country by people from around the world.

Go back and fix your title page Timmie.

I wonder that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, that any body in the US comprehended the concept of the "anchor baby". That being, a woman getting just one foot onto US soil before she drops a kid who is automatically a U.S. Citizen, making her and her Familly entitled to every handout from the Federal Government.

no concept existed. all children of illegal immigrants are not, and should not be considered US citizens. the amendment had nothing to do with illegal immigration.


We had one other case in our History where an Amendment proved to be a bad idea. The 18th, which brought on Prohibition. After the Country realized the mistake, the 21st was ratified to correct this travesty.

Perhaps it is time to amend the Constitution in order to get rid of it's big flaw that was never what the Amendment was for in the first place. The 14th is not one of the originol Bill of Rights, so I consider it fair game.

it should be removed. it's no longer a valid concept for what it's original purpose was. it was about the fact that at the time this country was created, black slaves were not considered citizens.it was a post Civil War amendment to address that as a right of former slave's children to be considered citizens, as they should be. but since no black slaves actually came here as illegal immigrants, it should not apply to children of illegals.

Any body already here would still be a citizen. They would still be just as much a citizen as you or I. But we have to put the brakes on sooner or later. Now is as good as any time to start. Originally Posted by Jackie S

No. any child of an illegal alien are themselves illegals. they have no right to be considered US citizens.

I don't even have to read the OP this time. Trump was not talking about immigration, he has never talked about immigration. Trump and many on the right are talking about criminal acts, that is ILLEGAL immigration or the invasion of this country by people from around the world.

Go back and fix your title page Timmie. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

lol i won't be waiting for him to do anything except face-plant himself yet again. good enough for me

http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-s...184700318.html

Fears over illegal immigration and "anchor babies" have led several Republican presidential candidates – including front-runner Donald Trump – to rail against a significant part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment – named the citizenship clause – grants automatic citizenship to people born in the country.

“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,” the amendment states.

The criticism of the clause from the GOP candidates centers on the automatic granting of citizenship to a child whose parents are in the country illegally, an idea known as "birthright citizenship."


But where did this privilege even come from?


When the amendment was ratified in 1868, it had nothing to do with illegal immigration, a concept that did not exist back then. Instead, it focused on the reparation of rights to former slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War.


Since the country's founding, birthright citizenship had effectively reigned as a common-law practice. But in 1857, in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the US Supreme Court took away that privilege for people with African ancestry.
In the decision, the nation’s highest court ruled that regardless of whether they were free, African-Americans could never become US citizens. The legal argument was that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and were not subject to the protections that citizenship confers.

The citizenship clause was drafted to reverse that decision and grant the right of citizenship back to African-Americans. In 1898, another Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, reaffirmed the privilege of birthright citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to noncitizen Chinese parents, sued for his right to citizenship after he was denied reentry back into the US. At that time lawmakers had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which limited Chinese immigration to the nation and made it impossible for legal immigrants to naturalize.


Still, since Wong was born in the country, the court ruled he was an automatic citizen.
“The idea was that birth in the free air and land of the United States was enough to establish them as a free citizen of the nation,” says David Abraham, a law professor at the University of Miami.

this is where the Supreme Court totally fucked up. note that Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants, not illegal.

Critics of birthright citizenship focus on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which they interpret to mean that children of undocumented immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ home country and not the Constitution. They note that Wong's parents were legal immigrants and argue that citizenship should not be immediately extended to the children of people in the country illegally.


With Plyler v. Doe (1982), which focused on the rights of children to attend public school, the Supreme Court reinforced that the rights of citizenship should be conferred on the children of undocumented immigrants. But that decision is waved off by critics as specifically dealing with public school education and not with citizenship status.
Automatic citizenship at birth is more of an exception to the rule rather than a global norm, but legal experts say this is due to the cultural and historical development of the US.

the 14th amendment had nothing to do with illegal aliens or their children's so-called "citizenship birthrights" yet over the years the Supreme Court has bastardized it into some ridiculous implication that you can "invade" this country illegally and somehow this makes your children legal citizens? Bullshit.

repeal it. if you held a Constitutional Convention today to either repeal it outright or add language that states any child, no matter how their parents arrived here, legal or not, are automatic citizens the latter would fail completely. Even the Angry Black kids who are citizens by right wouldn't support it. they are just as pissed at all this crap as the whites are as we know we whitey's be pretty damn angry about it.

besides, the angry blacks don't like the illegals getting all that government welfare they think is their right to have.



“The American version of birthright citizenship is the product of our very specific and intense history of a country that has grappled with slavery and has had a lot of immigration,” Professor Abraham says.

the 14th amendment should be flat out repealed. it's intended purpose has long ago ceased to exist. all children of former slaves are citizens today and have been for over 100 years. it was never meant to extend citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.

Section 5 of the 14th amendment says that Congress has the power (and not the executive branch) to legislate the hows and whys of the 14th amendment (that includes immigration). That is why Obama said 22 times publicly that he did not have the power to just give an amnesty in any way, shape, or form. He broke the law.

My name is Rey Tardo I like to use emoticons and talk about gloryholes. I swishy walk to the nearest one I can find and stick my nasty dick through the hole. I'm always hoping it's a big buck negro behind the hole and that he'll stretch my ass wide My name is rey tardo and I approved this message. I like swishy walking in the rain, nasty butt sex and unicorns. I'm obviously gay, but can never come out. My name is rey tardo...

As with everything Trump, lots of wind with no details.

1. The Donald apparently wants to repeal that part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that grants citizenship to any child born in the United States. Setting aside how utterly un-American that proposition is....what are the chances he can make that happen? He would need 2/3 of both the House and the Senate to approve such a thing. In addition to support from 3/4 of the state legislatures in the country. Anybody want to offer an opinion of how likely that is to occur?

Right. It won't. Why is he talking about it?

2. Mandatory deportation for all persons in the country illegally. Including children who are US citizens per the 14th Amendment but whose parents are here illegally. Setting aside the utterly repugnant and abhorrent idea of arresting and deporting babies, kindergartners,1st graders, elderly people, and kids who have lived their whole lives in the United States and are getting ready to graduate from high school.... Let's see....we're talking about rounding up 11,500,000 people if the Department of Homeland Security's most recent estimate is correct. Anybody care to offer an opinion as to the logistics on how that will be accomplished?

Right. It won't. Why is he talking about it?

3. Trump insists that he will build a wall that will eliminate illegal immigration from Mexico. And, Mexico will pay for it. Uh huh.

Never happen. Why is he talking about it?

Because he knows that his idiotic and moronic constituency is disconnected from reality when it comes to their xenophobic viewpoints on immigration. In other words, they are conservative Republicans who thrive on fear, hatred, and intolerance. Originally Posted by timpage

Perhaps he is asking for more than he expects to get - The Art of the Deal?

Additionally, he is able to bring to light the concept that the Mexican government is not sending their best people, they are sending poor, uneducated laborers who they cannot take care of themselves. They have cleverly turned their failure to govern their country into our racism!

You people are hatin' on Trump for him telling the truth!

We do not have an immigration problem, we have a problem with people invading our country and not respecting our laws.

Perhaps he is asking for more than he expects to get - The Art of the Deal?

Additionally, he is able to bring to light the concept that the Mexican government is not sending their best people, they are sending poor, uneducated laborers who they cannot take care of themselves. They have cleverly turned their failure to govern their country into our racism!

You people are hatin' on Trump for him telling the truth! Originally Posted by DSK

actually i don't think the Mexican government is actively sending anyone across the border but you and Trump are correct that the ones who are coming over illegally are most certainly from the lowest economic strata of Mexico. the poorest of the poor. I also don't agree with Trump that most are criminals. certainly some are, and many turn to crime once here. Most however are just dirt poor farmers who can't make any kind of decent living there. they'd stay in Mexico if they could make a living there.

once here, hard working or not, they are all criminals in the sense that they are here illegally.

We do not have an immigration problem, we have a problem with people invading our country and not respecting our laws. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

and if that was not bad enough, we have American citizens also not respecting the law. those angry brothers and sisters. they be burnin' down they house!
lawless thugs.

Trump is getting traction because he'll say what he wants like it or not. the "professional politicians" won't dare speak their real views. Trump will. He may not win, but he's having fun poking a stick into the eye of the establishment. and they need to be poked in the eye with a sharp stick. just look at the fucked up job most of them, Democrat or Republican, have done over the 70 years or more.

interestingly even Mexico knows at some point they'll have to address the labor drain on their economy. they won't have any workers, they'll all be in the US. Hmm. maybe when that comes back to bite them Mexicans in the ass they will build a wall on their side after all?

I wonder that when the 14th Amendment was ratified, that any body in the US comprehended the concept of the "anchor baby". That being, a woman getting just one foot onto US soil before she drops a kid who is automatically a U.S. Citizen, making her and her Familly entitled to every handout from the Federal Government.

We had one other case in our History where an Amendment proved to be a bad idea. The 18th, which brought on Prohibition. After the Country realized the mistake, the 21st was ratified to correct this travesty.

Perhaps it is time to amend the Constitution in order to get rid of it's big flaw that was never what the Amendment was for in the first place. The 14th is not one of the originol Bill of Rights, so I consider it fair game.

Any body already here would still be a citizen. They would still be just as much a citizen as you or I. But we have to put the brakes on sooner or later. Now is as good as any time to start. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Fair game? That's an interesting approach to constitutional law....anything that's not a part of the first ten is subject to challenge by you and yours? Ask your wife or daughter if they like to vote when you talk that kind of nonsense.

Just about what I would expect from somebody that thinks an idiot like Donald Trump ought to be President of the United States. I'm surprised it's you.

Now....my question. How does he get this thing done?

I don't even have to read the OP this time. Trump was not talking about immigration, he has never talked about immigration. Trump and many on the right are talking about criminal acts, that is ILLEGAL immigration or the invasion of this country by people from around the world.

Go back and fix your title page Timmie. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Go back and grow a brain stem admiral. Your back-pedaling without an answer to my questions.

No. any child of an illegal alien are themselves illegals. they have no right to be considered US citizens.




lol i won't be waiting for him to do anything except face-plant himself yet again. good enough for me

http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-s...184700318.html

Fears over illegal immigration and "anchor babies" have led several Republican presidential candidates – including front-runner Donald Trump – to rail against a significant part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment – named the citizenship clause – grants automatic citizenship to people born in the country.

“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,” the amendment states.

The criticism of the clause from the GOP candidates centers on the automatic granting of citizenship to a child whose parents are in the country illegally, an idea known as "birthright citizenship."


But where did this privilege even come from?


When the amendment was ratified in 1868, it had nothing to do with illegal immigration, a concept that did not exist back then. Instead, it focused on the reparation of rights to former slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War.


Since the country's founding, birthright citizenship had effectively reigned as a common-law practice. But in 1857, in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, the US Supreme Court took away that privilege for people with African ancestry.
In the decision, the nation’s highest court ruled that regardless of whether they were free, African-Americans could never become US citizens. The legal argument was that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and were not subject to the protections that citizenship confers.

The citizenship clause was drafted to reverse that decision and grant the right of citizenship back to African-Americans. In 1898, another Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, reaffirmed the privilege of birthright citizenship.
Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to noncitizen Chinese parents, sued for his right to citizenship after he was denied reentry back into the US. At that time lawmakers had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which limited Chinese immigration to the nation and made it impossible for legal immigrants to naturalize.


Still, since Wong was born in the country, the court ruled he was an automatic citizen.
“The idea was that birth in the free air and land of the United States was enough to establish them as a free citizen of the nation,” says David Abraham, a law professor at the University of Miami.

this is where the Supreme Court totally fucked up. note that Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants, not illegal.

Critics of birthright citizenship focus on the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which they interpret to mean that children of undocumented immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ home country and not the Constitution. They note that Wong's parents were legal immigrants and argue that citizenship should not be immediately extended to the children of people in the country illegally.


With Plyler v. Doe (1982), which focused on the rights of children to attend public school, the Supreme Court reinforced that the rights of citizenship should be conferred on the children of undocumented immigrants. But that decision is waved off by critics as specifically dealing with public school education and not with citizenship status.
Automatic citizenship at birth is more of an exception to the rule rather than a global norm, but legal experts say this is due to the cultural and historical development of the US.

the 14th amendment had nothing to do with illegal aliens or their children's so-called "citizenship birthrights" yet over the years the Supreme Court has bastardized it into some ridiculous implication that you can "invade" this country illegally and somehow this makes your children legal citizens? Bullshit.

repeal it. if you held a Constitutional Convention today to either repeal it outright or add language that states any child, no matter how their parents arrived here, legal or not, are automatic citizens the latter would fail completely. Even the Angry Black kids who are citizens by right wouldn't support it. they are just as pissed at all this crap as the whites are as we know we whitey's be pretty damn angry about it.

besides, the angry blacks don't like the illegals getting all that government welfare they think is their right to have.



“The American version of birthright citizenship is the product of our very specific and intense history of a country that has grappled with slavery and has had a lot of immigration,” Professor Abraham says.

the 14th amendment should be flat out repealed. it's intended purpose has long ago ceased to exist. all children of former slaves are citizens today and have been for over 100 years. it was never meant to extend citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Backwoods, racist hating motherfucker. You post nothing worth comment. Get back to composing your little racist musical diddies based on your favorite Beverly Hillbilly's episode.

Backwoods, racist hating motherfucker. You post nothing worth comment. Get back to composing your little racist musical diddies based on your favorite Beverly Hillbilly's episode. Originally Posted by timpage

ahahahahahahaha. awwww poor little timmytard can't refute one thing i posted can ya? so you resort to "yelling racist racist!" you'd give citizenship to all the illegals wouldn't ya?
fucking liberal jew.

Perhaps he is asking for more than he expects to get - The Art of the Deal?

Additionally, he is able to bring to light the concept that the Mexican government is not sending their best people, they are sending poor, uneducated laborers who they cannot take care of themselves. They have cleverly turned their failure to govern their country into our racism!

You people are hatin' on Trump for him telling the truth! Originally Posted by DSK

Stupid fucking asshole. The Mexican government isn't "sending" anybody. Mexican people are coming here to work you dumb motherfucker. Because there is no work in Mexico that allows them to feed and clothe their families. If you lived in Mexico and were poor and had a hair on your fucking jew ass, you'd do the same.

You come on here and you say stupid shit like "he is able to bring to light the concept that the Mexican government is not sending their best people" as if you are making some sort of deeply intellectual statement. Do you truly not understand how pathetic that is? Trump is a fucking joke, a punctuation mark to the lunacy and stupidity of the republicans. And you quote him as if he is the Dali Lama....no offense Dali.

Moron.

ahahahahahahaha. awwww poor little timmytard can't refute one thing i posted can ya? so you resort to "yelling racist racist!" you'd give citizenship to all the illegals wouldn't ya?
fucking liberal jew.


Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Go fuck yourself you ten-toothed backwoods Waco redneck. You're the one having problems explaining how The Donald is going to implement his immigration program. Shouldn't you be playing your banjo about now and composing a Beverly Hillbilly's song you sad fucking sack of shit?