A debate between Trump and Sanders would be glorious... Not for the future of this country, but as entertainment it might be the best hour ever recorded.

No. They are legally under the jurisdiction of their home country if they are illegally in the United States.

Are they subject to obeying the laws of the U.S. while in the U.S.? Of course. Just like I am when I visit another country legally.

But for you and I to try and argue this is ridiculous. Neither of us are experts. But the guy who IS an expert is whom I referred to.

Actually I didn't hear him say that.

What I heard him say is that they "have to go".

As I said earlier...deport the parents. And they need to take their child with them. When that kid turns 18 he can come to the United States because he is a citizen. Until then, he's a minor and needs to live with his parents in THEIR home country.

It would be awesome. But for you or I to judge what is or is not good for the country would be foolish.

One thing is for certain when talking about the good of the country...NONE of the other bureaucrats in the race for President are good for our country. We don't need more of the same old shit that got us to where we are now (wars, 18 trillion in debt, being spied on, searched like criminals at airports, etc.)

Who is this guy you are referring to? Mark Levin?

This is another non-starter. It has already been witnessed that non-US citizens children have been arriving at the border by the tens of thousands. Now you don't think that US citizen children won't be doing the same? Is border patrol supposed to deny these US Citizen children from re-entering the US if they arrive by themselves (or with other US Citizen children) at the border?

Here is an interesting opinion article by a CNN legal analyst:

Could Trump really change birthright rules? - CNN.com

A minor can't legally just live on it's own. I don't care how many children show up.

If a child runs away from home, they are returned to the parents.

That would be my whole argument if I were to make one against the "anchor babies". Their parents are illegal. The child would be a U.S. citizen. But the child has to live with it's parents or if he/she has other family in the U.S. they could live with them.

But the parents? Send 'em back home. And take their kid with them. When he/she is 18 years old, then he/she could come back.

That makes the most common sense to me.

It seems ass-backwards to allow people to enter the country to shit out a baby so the parents themselves can now stay.
Makes no sense in any way.

Don't you agree? Or do you think it's just fine and dandy the way it is?

Also...we all realize that the 14th amendment was written to make all the freed slaves citizens (they were all born to parents who were slaves themselves and not citizens).
Using it for "anchor babies" is a legal loophole that is detrimental to the country.

Or do you think it's a great idea to allow it to continue?

What does Mark Levin have to do with anything? Do you listen to his show or something? I've never even heard the guy's show or know much about him except for googling him after you brought him up.

Are you trying to say that Mark Levin believes the same thing...therefore it's some kind of super-right nutcase Republican thing?

I also believe that this Mark Levin character breathes air, eats food, and drinks water. Does that mean that "good" people don't do that because he does it? lol

Let me give you another person who once espoused ending anchor babies: My own embarrassment of a Senator: Harry Reid.
He changed his tune when it became politically expedient to do so. But yes, he once pretty much agreed with the position that Trump is putting forth.

But like all bureaucrats, he changed his mind on it to keep himself in power and get votes. :(

Not if you can't find the parents. Those children become wards of the State.

What is the US supposed to do...go to whatever country they think the parent is located in, find them, and force them to take custody of their US citizen child?


Like I said above, the child does not have to live with the parents if those parents can't be found. You can't seriously think the US government will send thousands of government agents to span foreign countries in search of these absentee parents, and if they find them, force those parents to re-take custody of their child? How would they even force that?


I do agree it is ass backwards...but to expect that these US citizen children will not be turning right around and demanding to enter the US is ass backwards x2

No I do not think it is a great idea and that it should be allowed to continue unabated. But the method that Trump is proposing, to say illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US, is even worse. If one wants to really stop this phenomenon from happening, the correct way would be to amend the Constitution to more clearly indicate that birthright citizenship does not apply to those who enter illegally. But a Constitutional amendment requires agreement by both House and Senate...PLUS 3/4 approval of every state legislature in this country. Trump knows that is highly unlikely from ever happening, that is why he is proposing this much simpler argument.

A lot of people currently on food stamps and the like only became eligible for such after their jobs were off shored or were taken by H-1B's.

Trump promises to reverse that trend. The "47 percenters" who believe him will no doubt vote for him. Ditto still others who fear that their jobs will be off shored in the coming years.

Sanders too is appealing to that same demographic and he's steadily gaining on Hillary.

This is going to be an interesting election season to be sure.

I said pretty clearly that it was on CBS NEWS radio. Top of the hour national news from CBS. Not an opinion/talk show.

They said the guy's name and how he was an expert. I was on my way to the gym and don't remember his name.
I tried googling it up but it's not showing anything.

I wish I had memorized it. But it wasn't that big a deal to me and I had other things on my mind.

No I do not think it is a great idea and that it should be allowed to continue unabated. But the method that Trump is proposing, to say illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US, is even worse. [/QUOTE]

The whole "under the jurisdiction" was meant to cover the freed slaves in 1868 when the amendment was passed. They truly were "under the jurisdiction".

Illegal aliens are not.

The Supreme Court even ruled that Native American Indians were not "under the jurisdiction" and gave them citizenship on a case-by-case basis until Congress granted all of them citizenship in 1924.

This isn't quite as black and white as it appears.

But again...I would simply send the parents back home and make them take their kids with them. Let the kids be citizens. But make them live with their parents in the parent's home country until they are of legal age.

I simply said I didn't hear him say that. I didn't mean he didn't say it. Sorry for that confusion.

And Trump "may" be correct in his assertion as I was telling you.

But...in my personal opinion it's a huge waste of time and money to go down that route when you can simply deport the illegals and make them take their kids with them.

Not sure how you can make that analogy in any way, shape, or form.

The 2nd amendment says "bear arms" and was set up so the govt. couldn't disarm the citizenry.

The 14th amendment was set up decades later to ensure that former slaves were now considered full citizens.

Your analogy is just not there.
For instance...right now, if an ambassador from another country is living in New York (where the UN is at) and his wife has a baby in New York...that baby is NOT a U.S. citizen by law. Even though it was born on U.S. soil.

Google that one up and you'll see it plain as day.

But yet somehow a person entering the country who isn't a diplomat can have a baby and it's automatically a citizen?

So how come the 14th amendment doesn't cover that child of the diplomat, and didn't cover Native Americans...but is good for everyone else?

That's the gray area that Trump is saying could be challenged in court.

And he's right...there is a good argument for that.

Hey, if you had told me that Pres. Obama would have won the ObamaCare argument in the Supreme Court I would have said "No way".
But since I'm no legal expert, I had no idea that the Court would simply declare it as a "Tax" and say yes it's legal.

So before you offhandedly dismiss that the 14th amendment can be challenged in the case of "anchor babies", you should keep that in mind.

100 trumps.

I don't agree with anchor babies if the parents are here illegally. If the parents are here legally, it might be more up to discussion, but even that should be a case by case situation if the parents aren't citizens.


I'm not 100% but I'd suspect I couldn't go to say Norway or France with a pergnet wife, have a kid while on vacation then expect to live there because the kid was born there.. I wouldn't suspect many countries would allow that, but then again I could be wrong.

The whole premise of anchor babies just encourages abuse of the law.

I just think it's fucking hilarious that we're once again having this exact same argument that was supposed to be "settled" back in 1986 :1orglaugh

When amnesty was granted to 4 million illegals with congress's solemn promise that we would never do anything like that again. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...ol_Act_of_1986

That's when I first heard of and was appalled by the practice of "anchor babies" a practice that still continues 29 years later :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

As usual government was never held accountable for breaking it's promises.

I'll say it again, we have the government we deserve. :upsidedow

Politicians don't need to be held accountable. They need to get in, sell some dreams and then blame the other guy when those dreams don't happen, then promise the dreams again to get elected once again. Rinse and repeat.

What happens when a businessman depends on "blaming the other guy?" They lose their business and are out on the streets. Toxic.

Um... That's exactly what it means. If an ambassador from another country is living in NY and his wife has a babe in NY.... That baby is in fact US Citizen.

:2 cents::thumbsup

However, the longer he stays in the race, more he will give to the Democrats. He's not popular at all with the undecided and independents (8%-12% of voters).

Trump, the bell tolls for thee!

not.

he's 6 points out from HIlls, when she drops out and the DNC falls into complete disarray, he'll be standing alone at the top of both party's heaps of candidates.

The 14th amendment specifically says diplomats do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US. I hope the issue goes to court and a ruling officially gets challenged. Even though the amendment gives congress sole discretion to name who gets citizenship.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowld...Trump-hair.jpg

http://russia-insider.com/sites/insi...trump-hair.jpg

The Author of the Citizen clause of the 14th amendment:

Native Americans were excluded because their jurisdiction/loyalty was to their tribes. In 1884 a native left his reservation and tried to get US citizenship. He was denied by the supreme court as he was deemed to still have partial loyalty to his tribe. Congress changed this and made all Natives citizens in 1923 using their power to decide who can be allowed.

1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme court ordered that children born in the United States to permanent legal residents of the US are afforded the right of citizenship.

That is the only decision on whose babies, other than citizens could be afforded automatic citizenship.

Neither the Supreme Court or Congress have ever declared or changed the law to provide children of either illegals, tourists, foreigners or diplomats automatic citizenship.

Congress could convene tomorrow and declare that of course, but haven't. In fact in 1997 congress tried to convene to make the language crystal clear that the above were not automatic citizens by birth. But outside groups pressured them to not pass it. One of the biggest champions of this language was Sen Harry Reid. You can google his 1993 floor speech about why it should not be granted to these children.

Eventually this will come before the Supreme Court. Even if congress passes their own new language either way, it will get challenged to the court.

Bullshit, as Trump knows, he just files bankruptcy and pretends he has no money till the day after the hearing...

:2 cents:

i know you're trying "rile up the conservatives" but really. think about what you just wrote- that Trump scammed the courts and that his personal resources were involved with more than the first br. you can't pretend to be broke as a strategy with high-profile proceedings like this, they are scrutinized to the nth degree. and Trump's personal resources were only at risk in the first one anyway.

France, you could have but they changed their laws in 1993, so now you can't. List of recent countries that stopped the practice of granting birthrights to non citizens babies.
Australia (2007)
New Zealand (2005)
Ireland (2005)
France (1993)
India (1987)
Malta (1989)
UK (1983)
Portugal (1981)


Outside of the USA, Canada and Mexico, the only other countries that give automatic citizenship at birth for all, is the Latin American and Caribbean countries. No European or Asian country allows it. But you are in luck if you go have your child in Pakistan!!

Great, fine, brilliant. Diplomats don't count. Diplomats typically aren't making anchor babies.

I can think of dozens of people on GFY alone will be impacted by this. One poster on this board is married to a man born in the US, but his parents were here legally on a work visa when he was born. Wonderful. Let's kick them both out of the country, and their new baby too. Then we can take their house.

How does that solve our problem?

You are so ridiculous it makes my head hurt sometimes. Nobody is saying to retroactively take away citizenship. People are making the argument to change it going forward. Of course you know this, and just like to kick and scream and act irrational to try extra hard to make your point.

Immigration reform that will make America great again

The three core principles of Donald J. Trump's immigration plan
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...gration-reform
The (reformer's ) legal theory and reasoning of the 14 Amendment's intent of Congress.
Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | colorado immigration law resources reference

News: Donald Trump Releases Immigration Reform Plan Designed To Get Americans Back To Work | CAIRCO news illegal aliens crime immigrants America

Donald Trump’s Mexican Border Wall Is a Moronic Idea

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18...ration-border/

A president Trump will be a diplomatic nightmare. His immigration policy is a scam for the populist and simpleton voters to grasp to, to change their lives of believed misery that they believe to be the fault of the "Pedros" of the world, that who for the most part, come to the United States to work toward bettering their lives at "Homer's" expense.

Trump is a top feeder and you naively believe that he is looking out for your interests ROFLMO. Trump will spend $500 million of his own money to try to get the Republican nomination -- Why?

And if he doesn't get the Republican nomination: He implies the threat to run, Trump and his over sized ego, as an independent third party candidate for President and guarantee the election of a President Hillary (or other Democrat candidate).

No mater who wins this time we all will lose ...

Vote for Captain Kirk

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/se...tner_38795.jpg

Jesus....are you just trolling? Freedom of speech protects ALL speech. And yes Ben Franklin loved dirty pictures and prostitutes.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup