Trump's Anchor Baby Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution

Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnew..._trump_640.jpg
Aug 17, 2015 // 10:57am As seen on America's Newsroom


Donald Trump laid out some details of his immigration plan in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" this weekend.

Trump, who has been criticized in recent weeks for failing to give particulars on his immigration promises, said he will rescind President Obama's executive orders and end birthright citizenship.
FoxNews.com reported:

As part of it, Trump said he wants to rescind President Obama's executive orders on immigration; deport many of those in the U.S. illegally while providing an expedited return process for "the good ones;" and do away with automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.

The Trump campaign said the policy, known as birthright citizenship, is the "biggest magnet" for illegal immigration.

"They have to go," Trump said on NBC's "Meet the Press," of families living in the U.S. illegally and having a child, adding:

"What they're doing, they're having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows ... the baby's here."

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning on "America's Newsroom" what Trump can and cannot do on immigration. He said that Trump's promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is "prohibited by the Constitution."

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.

He added that any president can rescind an executive order of a predecessor. But the judge pointed out that every undocumented immigrant that Trump intends to deport would be entitled to a hearing and an appeal.

"That's between 11 and 13 million hearings and appeals. The most the United States has ever conducted in a year is 250,000. So do the math," Napolitano said, adding that the taxpayer would foot the bill for the proceedings, including defense costs.

Watch the judge's full analysis above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/1...itano-explains

Anchor babies WOULD HAVE been deported if conservatives had taken legal action to ensure enforcement of our laws. Deported parents would have had to taken any kids less than 10 back with them----and hopefully they would have lost their papers somewhere. But if they are teenagers someone else will just take them in, and look after them until they reach the age to get jobs, and shove white kids out of the way.

The POLITICAL ACTION has still a somewhat chance of working. Just remember there is still a BIG election hurdle over one year away. In the meantime immigration advocates are uncovering every conceivable front to advance on. The protection of US citizenzry should be paramount, not the rights of those with illegal entry. Lawyers need to argue this point---yet they are always pushed back by the ACLU and their arguments.

The current anchor baby policies of the United States are based on an interpretation of the clause that was added to the Constitution to cover the slave population, not millions of illegal aliens. America is one of only 2-3 remaining modern nations with such a policy and many others that had the policy have done away with it.

Over the last 11 years Ive seen many legal scholars claim that birthright citizenship could be removed by Congress clarifying what the interpretation of the clause is supposed to be.

And if we need to, we have enough popular support in America to change the US Constitution on this as a matter of national defense and survival. Otherwise, China and Mexico will soon control the US by exploiting our borders, laws, and birthright citizenship clause.

Currently, if an illegal alien parent is to be deported and their child is a US citizen but a minor we can insist they take their children with them or face child neglect charges.

W

The 14^th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment. 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with with Illegal Aliens having children here.

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano. I would like to know were it says that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

. . . Currently, if an illegal alien parent is to be deported and their child is a US citizen but a minor we can insist they take their children with them or face child neglect charges.

W

---

Some 2011 articles indicate that illegal alien parents who are deported want to take their U.S. born kids with them but the kids are taken from them and put into foster care because I.C.E. won't let them take U.S. citizens out of the country without a court order.

http://www.alipac.us/f12/thousands-k...on-sys-242996/
11/2/11


http://www.alipac.us/f12/children-pa...cement-243686/
11/11/11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Judge Nap: Trump's Deportation Vow Is Prohibited By Constitution

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnew..._trump_640.jpg
Aug 17, 2015 // 10:57am As seen on America's Newsroom


Donald Trump laid out some details of his immigration plan in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" this weekend.

Trump, who has been criticized in recent weeks for failing to give particulars on his immigration promises, said he will rescind President Obama's executive orders and end birthright citizenship.
FoxNews.com reported:

As part of it, Trump said he wants to rescind President Obama's executive orders on immigration; deport many of those in the U.S. illegally while providing an expedited return process for "the good ones;" and do away with automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.

The Trump campaign said the policy, known as birthright citizenship, is the "biggest magnet" for illegal immigration.

"They have to go," Trump said on NBC's "Meet the Press," of families living in the U.S. illegally and having a child, adding:

"What they're doing, they're having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows ... the baby's here."

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained this morning on "America's Newsroom" what Trump can and cannot do on immigration. He said that Trump's promise to deport children born in America to illegal immigrant mothers is "prohibited by the Constitution."

"The Constitution says very clearly, whoever is born here - no matter the intent of the parent - is a natural-born citizen. He could not change that. Even if he were to change the Constitution, it would not affect people who had already been born here. It would only affect people not yet born here," said Napolitano.

He added that any president can rescind an executive order of a predecessor. But the judge pointed out that every undocumented immigrant that Trump intends to deport would be entitled to a hearing and an appeal.

"That's between 11 and 13 million hearings and appeals. The most the United States has ever conducted in a year is 250,000. So do the math," Napolitano said, adding that the taxpayer would foot the bill for the proceedings, including defense costs.

Watch the judge's full analysis above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/1...itano-explains

---

that what the illegal immigrants do they get pregnant home&they run over to our country to have the baby . & free of every thing & they said my baby is a usa citizen i don't think that right it should not be a citizen at all trump is % 100 right in every thing he said good luck trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southBronx

that what the illegal immigrants do they get pregnant home&they run over to our country to have the baby . & free of every thing & they said my baby is a usa citizen i don't think that right it should not be a citizen at all trump is % 100 right in every thing he said good luck trump

---

WELL IT LOOK LIKE OBAMA CAN CHANGE EVERY THAT HE WANT . OBAMA CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION THAT OK NO ONE SAID ANYTHING & TRUMP WANT THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NOT TO BE USA CITIZEN iM WITH HIM I STILL SAY THEY SHOULD NOT BE A USA CITIZEN

More on Birthright Citizenship

http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship

There are actions that have been taken that many believe violate the Constitution. To clarify "birthright citizenship" and to protect it against the abuse and misuse by illegal aliens is one action that would greatly benefit the United States and return us back to the original intent. It would end a big magnet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgiaPeach

More on Birthright Citizenship

http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship

There are actions that have been taken that many believe violate the Constitution. To clarify "birthright citizenship" and to protect it against the abuse and misuse by illegal aliens is one action that would greatly benefit the United States and return us back to the original intent. It would end a big magnet.

---

Good link GeorgiaPeach.

Quote:

---

What Law Requires Birthright Citizenship? Is automatic birthright citizenship for children of all legal and illegal aliens expressly required by the U.S. Constitution? On its face, the answer is “no.” No language in the Constitution specifically addresses how the children of foreigners must be dealt with in regards to citizenship. The 14th Amendment confers citizenship through “naturalization” or by birth to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, but provides no guidance on when an alien is to be regarded as subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The next question, then, is whether any statute enacted by Congress specifically directs the granting of citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens. Again, the answer is “no.” The executive branch’s birthright citizenship policy is not based on any federal regulation. One might say that the practice has become policy without becoming law.Because the current policy has not been taken through the standard legislative or regulatory processes, it has become official practice without any input from the American public or their elected representatives. A recent survey found that only 33 percent of Americans support the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.²²Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli. Countries generally adopt one of two systems for granting citizenship to children —jus sanguinis or jus soli. Most countries practice jus sanguinis, also known as citizenship by descent, or citizenship by “right of blood.” Under this system, a child acquires the parent’s citizenship upon birth. This threshold varies from country to country; for example, some countries will determine the child’s citizenship based on the father’s citizenship, while others will look to the mother’s citizenship. Countries practicing jus sanguinis will not automatically grant citizenship to a child born within their borders if that child is born to parents who are foreigners. This would be true of immigrants who have entered both legally and illegally. The child maintains the parent’s foreign citizenship.A small number of countries practice jus soli, or citizenship by “right of soil.” Under this system, a child automatically acquires the citizenship of the country in which the birth takes place. This citizenship is generally granted without conditions, and the citizenship and immigration status of the parents is inconsequential. Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries practice jus soli. The United States is one of the few countries with this system.Although the United States is practicing jus soli when it grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants, historians generally agree that the two citizenship principles that have vied for supremacy in Anglo-American law are that of ascription and consent — whether citizenship is ascribed to a person based on circumstances outside his control or whether there must be some form of consent by the individual and the state.²³ Some scholars have written that the United States has adopted elements of both ascription and consent, without ever adequately reconciling them into a practical, unified, or effective policy — something that must occur if the United States wishes to successfully address complex issues involving immigration and citizenship.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Some 2011 articles indicate that illegal alien parents who are deported want to take their U.S. born kids with them but the kids are taken from them and put into foster care because I.C.E. won't let them take U.S. citizens out of the country without a court order.

http://www.alipac.us/f12/thousands-k...on-sys-242996/
11/2/11


http://www.alipac.us/f12/children-pa...cement-243686/
11/11/11

---

This just shows how truly evil, ignorant and corrupt ICE has become. All the people involved in such foster care plots for children of illegal aliens who are deported need to be prosecuted for kidnapping and given life sentences. These children are automatic citizens of the country of citizenship of their parents, so they are kidnapping foreign nationals.

Is it possible to end birthright citizenship?

Birthright citizenship comes from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868. It states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." It gave citizenship to former slaves and overruled the Supreme Court, which said in Dred Scott v. Sandford that slaves were not U.S. citizens.

Multiple immigration law professors interviewed by CBS News said ending birthright citizenship would involve passing an amendment to change the Constitution.

http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i...947640x360.jpgPlay VIDEO
John Boehner: Immigration reform is “almost impossible”


"It would require a vote of two thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratification by three fourths of the state legislatures so politically, I think that's almost impossible," Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University Law School professor, told CBS News.

"Some people believe that they could simply pass a statue to end birthright citizenship without having to amend the Constitution, but I think that most legal scholars believe that a constitutional amendment is required."

Hiroshi Motomura, who teaches immigration law and citizenship at the University of California-Los Angeles, told CBS News that ending birthright citizenship is "an overly simple solution for a really complex problem...with consequences that are going to be seriously negative consequences for this country. It would be much better to fix the immigration system."

The small group of scholars who say the 14th Amendment is open to further clarification by Congress focus on the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." They point to the fact that Congress did not consider Native Americans to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and offered citizenship on a tribe-by-tribe basis until it was it was made available to all tribes in 1923.

Yale Law Professor Peter Schuck explained it this way in a 2010 New York Times op-ed: "The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent."

The most applicable Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship came in 1898 when the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark became a U.S. citizen at birth even though his parents - who lived in the U.S. when he was born - were of Chinese descent. His parents resided in the U.S. legally...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ending-b...t-citizenship/

Quote:

---

Multiple immigration law professors interviewed by CBS News said ending birthright citizenship would involve passing an amendment to change the Constitution.

---

What now? Quoting immigration lawyers who make their money representing immigrants about the US Constitution? That's funny!

Why not ask someone who works for ICE if we can deport illegal aliens or the IRS if we can pass the FairTax or the Mayor of DC if we can keep and bear arms?

Really.

It says "immigration law professors"

not immigration lawyers.

Quote:

---

Multiple immigration law professors interviewed by CBS News said ending birthright citizenship would involve passing an amendment to change the Constitution.

---