Title: TRUMP KICKING RINO ASS ON ANCHOR BABY CRISIS - GOP AMNESTY LURKERS SPLIT ON WHAT TO DO Source:
[None] URL Source:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... -gop-field-legal/?intcmp=hpbt1 Published:Aug 22, 2015 Author:By Joseph Weber Post Date:2015-08-22 19:12:13 by HAPPY2BME-4UM Keywords:DONALD TRUMP, 2016, ANCHOR BABY, AMNESTY Views:248 Comments:20
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s call to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants has refueled the immigration debate and spilt the GOP field and legal experts who question whether such a change is possible.
Trump’s plan goes after the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to essentially anybody born in the United States. But he is particularly focused on stopping pregnant women from illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border for the purpose of having a child or an “anchor baby,” which reduces the likelihood of the parents being deported.
Trump announced his plan Sunday, calling the amendment the country’s “biggest magnet for illegal immigration.” And he continues to suggest that his lawyers think the amendment might not withstand a court challenge.
“I was right,” Trump, the billionaire businessman and top GOP candidate, said Friday night at a rally in Alabama. “You can do something, quickly.”
However, other candidates and legal experts are split on the issue.
“Trump thinks ‘our country is going to hell.’ Well, there is likely little more than a chance in hell that we are going to amend the Constitution,” Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola University of Los Angeles, said Wednesday. “Amending the Constitution is one of the most serious things that lawmakers can do. Therefore the path to doing it is rightfully arduous. I would put the chances … as beyond a longshot."
[Strategy Room interview of former Deputy Attorney General, Tom Dupree, by Lauren Green]
At 3:00-3:20, Lauren Green discusses the birthright citizenship by geography "thing" that's been "shared with us" by Canada and Mexico (like a North American Union pact of New World Order agendists). She then reports that numerous European countries require at least one citizen parent (and other qualification considerations after that determination, as well) before recognition of citizenship status by birth in those countries. See also, 4um and C-SPAN linked Reference -- Center for Immigration Studies: Map of Countries that Recognize Birthright Citizenship, demonstrating that the vast majority of countries in the world do not do so automatically.
At 3:21-3:31, Green and Dupree both proliferate the cliche that America is "a nation of immigrants" and avoid conceptualizing America as distinctively being "a nation of legal immigrants" at all; seemingly like that's a procedural irrelevance to them ... reconditioned by globalists to be more stupefyingly PC inclusive of illegal migratory invaders using anchor baby tactics as imported (but naturalization duty-free) human shields for themselves; as catapults, too, for rocketing familial citizenship-importations here over other applicants and in violation of our Constitution's Uniform Rule of Naturalization.
At 0:37-1:00, former Deputy Attorney General, Tom Dupree, basically suggests that Congress doesn't have the power to repeal birthright citizenship for the anchor babies of illegal, foreign invaders unless the Supreme Court agrees to that. Sounds to me like a persuasive argument that the 14th Amendment should be entirely repealed, so the Supreme Court won't have any Constitutional questions thereof to further obscure.
There is, ALREADY, a law enacted by Congress defining the terms of birthright citizenship; The Civil Rights Act, of 1866. And until Congress passes another law to contradict that law...ANCHOR babies are, clearly, defined as NOT CITIZENS, OF THE UNITED STATES.
"All persons born in the United States are deemed citizens, EXCEPT those whose parents are under the jurisdiction of a foreign power". - The Civil Rights Act, of 1866.
IT'S THE LAW, AND WE'VE ALL BEING IGNORING IT, FOR SEVERAL DECADES.
the Act declared that people born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are entitled to be citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.[6]
14 Stat. 27-30, enacted April 9, 1866, was the first United States federal law to define US citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected by the law.[1] ... This legislation was enacted by Congress in 1865 but vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. In April 1866 Congress again passed the bill. Although Johnson again vetoed it, a two-thirds majority in each house overcame the veto and the bill therefore became law. ... Following passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, Congress reenacted the 1866 Act in 1870.
Birthright citizen is one thing, anchor babies are another. The present insanity is purely a function of the krazy mixt uppe "living document" age. No act, amendment or decree is valid if it conflicts with the original body of the Constitution -- and this garbage does, in every atom of its being.
