11
11
0
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."
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."
Election 2016
Politics
Law
Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 35
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Nathan Freeman - Spec; True, but, then again, the "illegals" COULD be deported even if they had lived a productive and blame-free life for forty years whereas a "legal" who has been in the country for three years and who has just received their American citizenship cannot.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Nathan Freeman - Spec; That's really good tactics.
Has Mr. Trump told the "African Americans" (a term I find distasteful if applied to anyone who was not born in Africa and if it excludes Caucasians who were born in Africa but who are American citizens) that those jobs are "stoop labour" and that they aren't available in the "Inner Cities"?
Mr. Trump's support amongst known potential republicans has risen from [16.2% to 23.8%] to [24.2% to 31.8%] and, as of the end of August he was the potential Republican candidate who had the second best chance of beating Ms. Clinton should she be the Democrat's candidate.
Has Mr. Trump told the "African Americans" (a term I find distasteful if applied to anyone who was not born in Africa and if it excludes Caucasians who were born in Africa but who are American citizens) that those jobs are "stoop labour" and that they aren't available in the "Inner Cities"?
Mr. Trump's support amongst known potential republicans has risen from [16.2% to 23.8%] to [24.2% to 31.8%] and, as of the end of August he was the potential Republican candidate who had the second best chance of beating Ms. Clinton should she be the Democrat's candidate.
(0)
(0)
SPC Nathan Freeman
Not all Mexican jobs are stoop jobs. Hanging Sheetrock is good money and most Sheetrock jobs are in the city.
Mr Trump met with some Hispanics at a city hall meeting and they had a good meeting. The reporter (who was Hispanic), was surprised as mr Trump said very little at all and did a lot of listening. He didn't interrupt anyone. He just listened. They were impressed.
He isn't hiding behind prewritten speeches at prescreened events. He went straight to the people who were against him and dealt with the matter personally. COL Ted Mc
Mr Trump met with some Hispanics at a city hall meeting and they had a good meeting. The reporter (who was Hispanic), was surprised as mr Trump said very little at all and did a lot of listening. He didn't interrupt anyone. He just listened. They were impressed.
He isn't hiding behind prewritten speeches at prescreened events. He went straight to the people who were against him and dealt with the matter personally. COL Ted Mc
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Michael Hathaway - Sergeant; Although the law WAS broken, the law WAS NOT broken by the child.
To take your position to ridiculous extremes, your position would allow for the execution of the children of convicted murderers because their parent(s) had committed a capital crime.
Obviously the consequences to a child born in the United States of America of an illegal entrant are not that severe - BUT - the principle is identical.
One cannot be prosecuted for something that is not illegal at the time that it is done - EVEN IF it becomes illegal later. This is a basic principle of the law in all civilized countries.
If the country really wants to change the Fourteenth Amendment, then it is free to do so. BUT it is NOT free to enact retroactive legislation if it wants to remain in the ranks of civilized countries.
To take your position to ridiculous extremes, your position would allow for the execution of the children of convicted murderers because their parent(s) had committed a capital crime.
Obviously the consequences to a child born in the United States of America of an illegal entrant are not that severe - BUT - the principle is identical.
One cannot be prosecuted for something that is not illegal at the time that it is done - EVEN IF it becomes illegal later. This is a basic principle of the law in all civilized countries.
If the country really wants to change the Fourteenth Amendment, then it is free to do so. BUT it is NOT free to enact retroactive legislation if it wants to remain in the ranks of civilized countries.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc
Capt Richard I P. - Captain; The day after the President is inaugurated isn't "too early to be calling that game" - as far as the people who want to succeed to that position are concerned.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Christopher Bishop - Corporal; I sort of like the ideal of having to "confirm" your citizenship when you reach the age of majority.
How about combining that with a deemed repudiation of citizenship if you don't bother to show up for you "Confirmation". [Being a nice guy, I think that people should be able to "confirm" their citizenship at any time within the year after they reach the age of majority AND be able to reschedule if they simply can't make the cerimony {provided that the rescheduled date is within the one year period}.]
How about combining that with a deemed repudiation of citizenship if you don't bother to show up for you "Confirmation". [Being a nice guy, I think that people should be able to "confirm" their citizenship at any time within the year after they reach the age of majority AND be able to reschedule if they simply can't make the cerimony {provided that the rescheduled date is within the one year period}.]
(0)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Bishop
That works for me. I leave you "brass" to handle the details. My main point was that every American should know the same basic information that the legally-minded immigrant applicants get tested on in their citizenship seeking process.
Of course this all probably also implies some level of post-"confirmation" checks and balances, too. Not sure how to go about implementing that without people crying about their freedoms being breached. That said, there should be said breeching for recipients of taxpayer dollars that are sent to them for living expenses where said recipients are not disabled (Disability Approved) or (Disability Pending).
Of course this all probably also implies some level of post-"confirmation" checks and balances, too. Not sure how to go about implementing that without people crying about their freedoms being breached. That said, there should be said breeching for recipients of taxpayer dollars that are sent to them for living expenses where said recipients are not disabled (Disability Approved) or (Disability Pending).
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC William Farrell - Sergeant; One of the really nice things about America is that it IS possible to get the law changed WITHOUT [a] being born into the right social class and/or [b] using firearms.
Admittedly there has been some speculation in some quarters that [a] is no longer applicable, but I think that it is.
Admittedly there has been some speculation in some quarters that [a] is no longer applicable, but I think that it is.
(0)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
COL Ted Mc I think I'll work to getting the law changed and I wont bring my firearms to the fight! Do you really think it is acceptable to have Asian mothers come take a vacation sponsored through a "baby mill" a month before they are due with the sole purpose of being born on US soil? While I am not the legal scholar you are Sir, there are some things that are just not right! All the best.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC William Farrell - Sergeant; Quite frankly - "No.".
Unfortunately that is the current state of the law in the United States of America.
An interim solution would be to require that the child remain in the United States of America for the first 2.5 years of their life. (Since the parent probably doesn't have a visa that allows them to stay in the US for 2.5 years, that sort of resolves the issue for the "Holiday babies".) If you add "legally" between the words "remain" and "in" that pretty much takes care of the remainder.
BUT - You still have to CHANGE THE LAW.
Unfortunately that is the current state of the law in the United States of America.
An interim solution would be to require that the child remain in the United States of America for the first 2.5 years of their life. (Since the parent probably doesn't have a visa that allows them to stay in the US for 2.5 years, that sort of resolves the issue for the "Holiday babies".) If you add "legally" between the words "remain" and "in" that pretty much takes care of the remainder.
BUT - You still have to CHANGE THE LAW.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Possibly, unless there is an awakening as to original intent. It's not an impossible issue, but would require an educated electorate.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG David Dickson - Staff; There have been various ideas as to what the "Original Intent" of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment advanced here. Those ranged from (I paraphrase) "Exactly what the words of the amendment state." through (I paraphrase) "Only citizenship for people whose parents are Americans." to (I paraphrase) "Granting slaves citizenship".
So, exactly what "Original Intent" are you supporting?
So, exactly what "Original Intent" are you supporting?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson I thought they were eligible to run as they are equal to being US born? How is Ted Cruz running?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl (Join to see) - Corporal; Thanks for the article. Of course it sort of conflicts with the position of the "Birthers" and also contradicts the position of those who hold that "British Law" has no place in the interpretation of American Law due to the interposition of the American Revolution.
Are you now conceding that the relevant British Law cited in US v. WONG was, IN FACT, correctly applied to an American "Constitutional Law Interpretation case or are you going to say (in essence) [as did the man convicted of bigamy] "I have a right to have my Kate, and Edith too."
Are you now conceding that the relevant British Law cited in US v. WONG was, IN FACT, correctly applied to an American "Constitutional Law Interpretation case or are you going to say (in essence) [as did the man convicted of bigamy] "I have a right to have my Kate, and Edith too."
(0)
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
SFC William Farrell - Despite many legal experts opinions to the contrary, conservative legal activist Larry Klayman, Orly Taitz, one of the leading proponents of the "birther" movement during Obama's presidency, Joseph Farah of World Net Daily, and Donald Trump, have stated that Cruz is not a natural born citizen and thus not eligible to run for president.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC George Rudenko - Spec; Am I missing something here (or was that just a 'finger fumble').
If "the Left" controls the House, Senate, and Presidency, it's pretty hard to see how you could have a "lame duck DC".
Of course, the media does tend to confuse "has a majority in" with "controls" when that simply isn't the case unless that majority is large enough to override any attempt at filibustering (a word with interesting origins).
If "the Left" controls the House, Senate, and Presidency, it's pretty hard to see how you could have a "lame duck DC".
Of course, the media does tend to confuse "has a majority in" with "controls" when that simply isn't the case unless that majority is large enough to override any attempt at filibustering (a word with interesting origins).
(1)
(0)
SPC George Rudenko
I had the unfortunate duty to meet congress once a year for a few years. But I really learned how THAT works. I see the president working, wether I like what he does or not. Congress spends 50-75% of its time fundraising. And we wonder why nothing happens? Super PAC's are the demise of democracy.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC George Rudenko - Spec; I agree with you that "Super PAC"s are a symptom of the demise of democracy. In fact ANY "untraceable" or "anonymous" money is a symptom of the demise of democracy.
I favour absolutely unlimited electoral advertising spending on two conditions:
[1] the actual name and personal (it could be their office) contact number of the person (it could be the head of the organization) placing the advertisement MUST be included (and that would include at least twenty hours per week [during "normal business hours"] when they could be reached directly through that contact information) [I'd consider establishing mandatory minimum response times (NOT to include "standard form auto responses") to any attempt to contact them as well]; and
[2] EACH political advertisement MUST include a statement either endorsing or a rejection of its contents by the candidate which it purports to be supporting (and that statement must be in a minimum of 12 point type). [I'd go so far as to include a mandatory lifetime disenfranchisement PLUS a mandatory minimum two year jail term for publishing a false endorsement or repudiation.]
That way no one's "freedom of speech" in "infringed" but everyone is made liable for the results of what they do to try and get "their guy" elected (even the candidates since the advertisement will potentially constitute either libel or slander and the candidate who endorses such becomes a party to it).
I favour absolutely unlimited electoral advertising spending on two conditions:
[1] the actual name and personal (it could be their office) contact number of the person (it could be the head of the organization) placing the advertisement MUST be included (and that would include at least twenty hours per week [during "normal business hours"] when they could be reached directly through that contact information) [I'd consider establishing mandatory minimum response times (NOT to include "standard form auto responses") to any attempt to contact them as well]; and
[2] EACH political advertisement MUST include a statement either endorsing or a rejection of its contents by the candidate which it purports to be supporting (and that statement must be in a minimum of 12 point type). [I'd go so far as to include a mandatory lifetime disenfranchisement PLUS a mandatory minimum two year jail term for publishing a false endorsement or repudiation.]
That way no one's "freedom of speech" in "infringed" but everyone is made liable for the results of what they do to try and get "their guy" elected (even the candidates since the advertisement will potentially constitute either libel or slander and the candidate who endorses such becomes a party to it).
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
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?
COL Ted Mc
LCDR Rabbi Jaron Matlow - Commander; No more than I would trust Mr. Trump or any of the other multitude of already declared Republicans seeking their party's nomination for the position of the President of the United States of America (although I might be persuaded to give a second look at those potential candidates who have not already gone on record with opinions that show that they haven't got a clue what the laws of the United States of America are).
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
COL - I like the way you think...
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google