Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election?

COL Ted Mc — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:28:16 -0400

From "The Washington Post"

Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?

It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.

Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.

For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.

After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.

EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Aug 20 at 2015 12:32 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:32:06 -0400

It is time to stand up for principle - and rise or fall on the consequences, IMHO. We have too many mealy-mouthed politicians today that will say anything to get elected and then do whatever they want later. Enough.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Aug 20 at 2015 12:33 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:33:03 -0400

I don't think they've given it away yet. They (with all other candidates) still have time to flip flop on the major issues. I agree in principal on the "anchor baby" thing, but I feel this is directed towards Hispanics vs. the broader situation of various nationalities who come here on vacation and have kids "suddenly". This was talked about on TV with the Chinese coming here and doing just that and having websites that promoted it. They need to make it a broad stroke instead of alienating a very large voting base.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 12:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:43:37 -0400

I've always thought citizenship should be based off IQ but that's too easy marginalize huge portions of the population.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Aug 20 at 2015 12:45 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:45:25 -0400

If Trump is the candidate, they've given away the election. He's the most popular candidate in the GOP, but that still isn't saying that those that oppose him would actually vote for him. If he's the candidate, you're going to see low Republican voter turn out and some GOP nose holding while they vote for a Democrat the first time in their lives.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Aug 20 at 2015 12:46 PM

SCPO David Lockwood — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:46:50 -0400

Now I'm not a republican but I do agree with ending birthright citizenship. We already have a huge illegal immigrant problem. Those who came into this country illegally wouldn't have to worry if they came here legally. Bottom line they have broken the law and to allow them to stay because they had a kid here is ridiculous.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 20 at 2015 12:54 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:54:20 -0400

It is way too early for anybody to give away the November 2016 Presidential election. If this news came out one year from now it may well have an impact, but, not in the summer of 2015.
Birthright citizenship laws need to be re-looked and updated so that all children born to legal US citizens anywhere in the world are citizens of the USA and that any children born to illegal residents is not automatically granted citizenship but will not be prohibited from citizenship if they later work to meet the requirements.
My wife is Cuban and I know many Hispanics including some who are probably not legal. By and large they are socially conservative and do not support open asylum laws for all illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, etc. Many of the working class people who are ion this area are sending money to their home country and hope to return there.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Aug 20 at 2015 12:57 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 12:57:21 -0400

Yeah I could see ending birthright citizenship, it would make running the border less appealing. If a person is going to enter a country they should do it legally. My thing is there are I don't know, however many millions of illegals in this country, its simply not realistic or practical to try and deport them, the cost factor, the logistics and such just wouldn't work out... so we need to give them a way to become TAX paying citizens. We need to hold Mexico more accountable for its side of the border.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 1:18 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:18:34 -0400

As far as the issue is concerned, a reading of the 14th Amendment should put this to bed.

As far as the notion that this "gives away" the election, I would point out that the Democratic front runner is very possibly going to be indicted.
I don't understand why any elected official or candidate kowtows to a population that by definition can't vote... unless they can.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Aug 20 at 2015 1:39 PM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 13:39:37 -0400

On this issue, as on abortion, Hispanics are not a monolithic voting block. My wife's father was born in Mexico and became a naturalized citizen. My wife, 3 of 6 siblings, and her father would support an end to birthright citizenship for illegals. The GOP has to have the right message on it, of course, but I'm not sure it's an election ending issue.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 20 at 2015 2:25 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 14:25:41 -0400

Are they going to start stripping those who were born here and grew up here of their citizenship because they had parents who were illegal? Those who are just as American as anyone who can trace generations back to crossing on a boat? If they do how far back will they go how many citizenships will they try to take going back how far. This is completely unreasonable and inhumane because with out immigration we wouldn't even have a country to call home. What gives you the right to take a home away from people fleeing and fighting for their lives for their families and for their children. What gives you the right to tell someone who is facing violence, famine and disease in the places they come from "sorry you have to go back" How dare you all act so inhuman towards another living breathing soul.

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 20 at 2015 3:12 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:12:09 -0400

We do not have, nor have we ever had simple birthright citizenship, and the 14 th amendment does not grant it. Please read this, with numerous quotes by the authors, and committee members who wrote the 14 th Amendment for a full understanding of the "citizenship clause" If the Republicans just lost the election as COL Ted Mc's article suggests, it is because of a lack of understanding, or lack of adherence to our Constitution and the 14th amendment. http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the...

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution, apportionment, slavery slaves citizenship vote

Response by PO3 Michael Dean made Aug 20 at 2015 3:31 PM

PO3 Michael Dean — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:31:55 -0400

Hispanic voters here LEGALLY, don't want every Hispanic on the planet here! Same as every white person doesn't want every white person here. Do you know how stupid that sounds? That's pure RACIST and LIBERALS at work. IDIOTS!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 12:04 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:04:10 -0400

Neither Donald (if elected) nor the supreme court has the power to end it since it is unconstitutional anyway. Does anyone not see section 5 below of the 14th amendment? It says CONGRESS shall have the power, not the Executive and not the Judicial.

14th Amendment - Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Senator Howard stated, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. "

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Who here has a reading comprehension problem with the language spoken by the Senator who served on the committee while drafting the Fourteenth Amendment?

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Aug 21 at 2015 12:31 AM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 00:31:33 -0400

So does that mean children of military families will no longer be true American citizens, how does it affect children with only one American parent. Sounds like a bunch of carp to me to insure government doesn't shrink because new rules n reg s will dominate

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 21 at 2015 1:32 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:32:21 -0400

Have you looked at what the Dems have. And old Hippie, Hillary who looks like she has a pin up he ass every time she is asked a hard question. And Govenor O'Mally who was booed of stage for saying all lives matter. And we're is Jim Webb? Now he could make Hillary pee her pant suit. Now for the Rebublicans, they are playing to the base. Let's see when they get whittled down to a reasonable number.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Aug 21 at 2015 1:40 AM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:40:15 -0400

PLEASE SAY YES - OMALLEY or WEBB 2016

Response by Cpl Tou Lee Yang made Aug 21 at 2015 1:43 AM

Cpl Tou Lee Yang — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 01:43:57 -0400

I really don't think it was a Republican win to begin with. These are not Republican these are Evangelical/Tea Party extremist that has high-jack the GOP. I just can't for the life of me understand how any Veteran would even consider voting for any of these clowns, not after they voted against the VA bill over and over. Bozo the clown may have a better chance than any of the GOP clowns.

Response by SSG Ricardo Marcial made Aug 21 at 2015 2:04 AM

SSG Ricardo Marcial — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 02:04:37 -0400

The question of birth right goes a lot farther than the current 5 min spot on the news. And it's been address by a few presidents over the last 30-40 years. Every president has faced this problem, and will continue to do so. Our laws are flawed, period. They don't protect the immigrant, and they don't protect those enforcing the laws. I don't have the expertise to debate all the complications of this mess, but I am smart enough to know that the current system is broken and nobody sitting in office or wanting to sit in office will do anything to fix it.

I will leave you with this, China who enjoys way too many perks from this and previous administration is one of the biggest abuser of our immigration law. Yes we have millions of people from Mexico and Central and South America here illegally, but China does not cross our southern border to violate the laws. They fly into Saipan, a US territory, were thousands of ABC or Chinese Born American babies are born every year. This has been going on for decades, and now is part of Saipan's main tourist money and will likely not end any time soon. Chinese families fly in, stay for the duration of the pregnancy and leave with a child and a US Passport for that child. This grants the family the right to enter the US mainland and stay under the current laws. Now take the investor visas that the Chinese buy out yearly, nearly 80% or more of the 10,000 yearly visas, add the illegal entries that fly in or enter by boat/freighters and are then granted automatic asylum status, this occur daily, and those numbers add up. They may not reach the numbers from our southern border, but I don't see immigrant picking fruit and vegetables in California being a bigger threat than Chinese are.

No current Rep or Dem running for POTUS will fix this problem, Trump can blah blah blah his way to the nomination, but he will not fix our immigration problems, even if the GOP controls both House and Senate, it's political suicide.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Aug 21 at 2015 4:01 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 04:01:45 -0400

Yes but it does play well to their Nativist Base. Unfortunately it will be hard as hell to walk it back come the General Election.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 21 at 2015 11:53 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:53:27 -0400

The more Trump speaks the dumber he becomes.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 2:34 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:34:16 -0400

Sir - to sidetrack a bit, it's hard to say the GOP even has a legit shot at the White House in 2016, given the current sitting of the Electoral College. I've read two studies recently, both who have utilized the last 5 to 6 Presidential elections as their basis to establish voting trends. That being said - both predicted that as it sits on election night, The Democrats start with a 242 electoral vote advantage (out of the 270 required to win), compared to low 100s electoral votes for Republicans.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Aug 21 at 2015 4:26 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:26:04 -0400

It is still a requirement to be a citizen to vote isn't it? According to What I see on the internet I'm not sure anymore... .

Honestly I see it as a non-issue... a way for the (R) candidates to fire up the (R) minions (And for the (D) candidates to rebut and fire up the (D) minions). I know people who came here illegally, became citizens through deception, and vote (R) every election... they bought the party line.

Every election it's the same damn thing... who can spin the "hot button" topics the best...

The fact of the matter is nobody has come forward with an immigration reform idea that would actually work. They just keep saying "Put this cape on and jump off the house..." I for one am sick of having my intelligence insulted (or maybe dismayed that we can't come up with a candidate that has enough intelligence to realize if you can't keep out of West Berlin with 90 miles of wall, you sure ain't gonna with 1,400 miles).

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Aug 21 at 2015 6:26 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:26:20 -0400

It is not possible to say now - the election is still 15 months away. The GOP primary field is so complicated, and with candidates relying by and large on negative campaigning, the message will be - "none of them are any good". This will be true to a lesser degree in the Democrats, but the Dems don't have a viable candidate right now, now that Hillary is going down for her violation of security protocols. Would you trust her with the keys?

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Aug 21 at 2015 6:30 PM

SPC George Rudenko — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 18:30:07 -0400

Since it's less likely the right will continue to control house and senate, even with a democrat president, it will still be a lame duck DC.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 21 at 2015 10:03 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:03:22 -0400

This isn't a "Hispanic" issue. No issue is any "group's" issue. This is an American issue. Anchor babies need to go. They've been a loophole for too long. I know too many people who joined the military for their citizenship. This is not fair to legal immigrants who have to earn their status and can't just get a day pass to have a baby on American soil because they can't just drive across the border.

Response by MCPO Katrina Hutcherson made Aug 22 at 2015 12:37 AM

MCPO Katrina Hutcherson — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 00:37:04 -0400

I don't believe in going against the constitution, but I am in favor of a constitutional amendment to close that loophole. I don't think the framers of the constitution envisioned anchor babies or birth tourism (currently practiced by Chinese citizens). And included in that amendment they could have a provision that U.S. Citizens born outside the U.S. as dependents of military members stationed OCONUS should be eligible to run for President.

Response by SSG David Dickson made Aug 22 at 2015 9:22 PM

SSG David Dickson — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 21:22:17 -0400

Possibly, unless there is an awakening as to original intent. It's not an impossible issue, but would require an educated electorate.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Aug 22 at 2015 11:27 PM

SFC William Farrell — Sat, 22 Aug 2015 23:27:11 -0400

I am a registered Republican and am all in favor of ending birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. Why should someone who comes into this country illegally (and Im not talking only from Mexico) and has a baby here, why should that baby be granted citizenship. Its just not right. Just like its not right with Asian mothers coming here legally to visit which just happens to be a month or so before they are to give birth thus enabling their babies US Citizenship and from what I have heard allowing the parents benefits. Its not right and needs to be stopped.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 23 at 2015 9:40 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 09:40:40 -0400

If the United States were to stop granting citizenship by birthright it will be following a global trend. Countries such as Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Germany, Switzerland.... These countries ended jus soli (on the soil) citizenship almost 40 years ago.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Aug 23 at 2015 4:14 PM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 16:14:41 -0400

Maybe I got a backwards way of looking at some things...but I don't believe Im entitled to anything purely based upon what geographical location my mother was when I happened to pop out. This makes me think of some religions where you not only have a Baptism shortly after birth, but also a Confirmation at an age where your brain is engaged on whatever decisions one will make. It seems to me to be not unreasonable that upon that age (what is that, somewhere around 12-14?) that maybe an American should have some sort of "Confirmation" that they are an American, and with some implication they shall work towards becoming a Contributor and not an Exploiter of this nation.

Of course, you can't win elections with that (demonstrated by those who voted Obama in his second term...where Romney ruined his own efforts by saying a word about Personal Responsibility, which apparently the simple majority didn't want to hear).

Please note that I am NOT limiting my words to immigrants (legal or illegal), but to everyone. It doesn't mean everyone has to take what we here at RP consider the "Oath", but...well you get my drift.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Aug 23 at 2015 10:03 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 23 Aug 2015 22:03:40 -0400

It's a little early to be calling that game.

Response by SSG Michael Hathaway made Aug 24 at 2015 8:45 AM

SSG Michael Hathaway — Mon, 24 Aug 2015 08:45:22 -0400

I'm a naturalized citizen and proud to be one. I am an American, legit. I agree that we need to look at the Birthright Citizenship since essentially, the law was broken.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Aug 27 at 2015 7:40 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:40:35 -0400

Donald trumps numbers continue to rise in the polls. He's reaching out to African Americans with thd pitch that more jobs will be available with the illegal immigrants gone. It seems to be working for him.

Response by SPC Nathan Freeman made Aug 27 at 2015 7:45 PM

SPC Nathan Freeman — Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:45:00 -0400

I would also add that legal immigrants resent illegal immigration because they didn't have to go through the lines and processes and tests like everyone else.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 16 at 2015 1:21 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 01:21:56 -0400

Them we all have to go back to Europe because we are nation of immigrants the only real american is the american indian is like the funding father new this was the only way to protect the right of the people to be here by adding birthright citizenship The Constitution is master pice you can't take single worth from it all article are design to protect each other the day we make any change to it will no longer by nation of free man.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 18 at 2015 8:26 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 18 Sep 2015 20:26:19 -0400

Here's to hoping.