In a Time of Universal Defeat, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Trump: No citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves to the crowd at the Iowa State Fair Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, in Des Moines. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to deny citizenship to the babies of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally as part of an immigration plan that emphasizes border security and deportation for millions.

He would also rescind Obama administration executive orders on immigration.

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the U.S.

“They have to go,” Trump said, adding: “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows … the baby’s here.”

Native-born children of immigrants — even those living illegally in the U.S. — have been automatically considered American citizens since the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868.

The odds of repealing the amendment’s citizenship clause would be steep, requiring the votes of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and support from three-fourths of the nation’s state legislatures. Republicans in Congress have repeatedly failed since 2011 to pass bills aimed at ending “birthright citizenship.” Some conservatives believe that the granting of citizenship in such cases could be changed without amending the Constitution.

“They’re illegal,” Trump said, describing native-born children of people living illegally in the US. “You either have a country or not.”

Trump’s remarks came as his campaign website posted his program for “immigration reform.” Among its details: Making Mexico pay for a permanent border wall. Mandatory deportation of all “criminal aliens.” Tripling the force of immigration officers by eliminating tax credit payments to immigrant families residing illegally in the U.S.

Trump said a tough deportation policy was needed because “there’s definitely evidence” of crimes linked to immigrants living in the country illegally. He repeated comments he’s made previously, noting that: “The good people can come back.”

The New York businessman also said he would waste little time rescinding President Barack Obama’s executive actions aimed at allowing as many as 3.7 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S. to remain in the country because of their U.S.-born relatives. Obama’s November 2014 actions were halted by temporary injunctions ordered by several federal courts in rulings challenging his executive powers to alter immigration policies without congressional approval. The cases could lead to the Supreme Court.

“We have to make a whole new set of standards,” Trump said. “And when people come in, they have to come in legally.”

Trump’s plan was endorsed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who chairs a Senate subcommittee on immigration.

“This is exactly the plan America needs,” Sessions said in a statement. “Crucially, this plan includes an emphasis on lifting struggling minority communities, including our immigrant communities, out of poverty, by preventing corporations from bringing in new workers from overseas to replace them and drive down wages.”

Most other GOP candidates also back completing the border wall but differ over how to treat immigrant families already living in the U.S.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush recently released his own immigration plan, which calls for the use of forward bases and drones to guard the border, but also backing an eventual plan to legalize the status of immigrant families.

On Sunday, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said he would “finish the wall” but would then work to legalize 11 million immigrants now estimated to live in the U.S. illegally. He spoke on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio worked with senators from both parties to develop a comprehensive plan in 2013 that would have legalized the status of many immigrant families. But Congress balked at the idea as tea party Republicans opposed the deal and Rubio has since backed away from his support.

___

Online:

“Meet the Press”: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/

Immigration plan on Trump website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

____________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2015 Capitol Hill Blue

Copyright  © 2015 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

5 thoughts on “Trump: No citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants”

  1. Are you kidding? We shouldn’t support anchor babies anymore than we should support illegals….and yes, that is exactly what they are. They steal into our country, and have babies who then are US citizens. Just wrong any way you look at it!!!! I am not against immigrantion, just illegal immigration!!!

  2. “he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the U.S.”

    So that means we will also adopt the principle of the child being guilty for the sins of their father? What is next Debtors Prison? Lets not forget to take away Women’s Suffrage while we are at it.

    When will “The Donald” begin to deport us? Our ancestors entered this country illegally, they just waded ashore, are they the original wetbacks?. That makes them illegals, thus their children are illegal and their children’s children are illegals and so on to today. That means even “The Donald” is an illegal thus can not be President. Oh the unintended consequences…

    • Deportations of illegals is the next BIG job market?
      Could well be and those would be FEDERAL jobs with good pay and vacations plus retirement and health benefits just like the post office.

      So let’s say you are stuck with 25+ million ILLEGALS and you need to ship them out. FedEx and UPS is not designed for that BUT you just happen to have Amtrak which is under used and over funded. So you use it.

      Now you need people say 150,000 more or less to capture and do the paper work and ship the ILLEGALS OUT. So now you have taken 150k in people OFF unemployment right? And on average every mid level job creates three additional jobs OUTSIDE the original 150K.

      Now you don’t ship them back with their stuff, just the clothes on their backs and a pair of zip cuffs. Whatever they bought was with ill gotten gains from a crime and that crime being illegal entry.

      Now while the first look at the sticker price may scare you some of the other results should make you happy.
      150 NEW middle class TAX PAYERS
      150 NEW entry level or better TAX PAYERS
      Reduced crime.
      Reduced cost of social budget

      So you raise the tax base {income} at the same time you cut social programs {costs}. Deporting ILLEGALS could make more jobs then the Keystone pipeline OR the fence. Once the fence is built you can cut staff from those jobs but you are looking at a decade of mass deportations.

      Deporting ILLEGALS from this country could be one of the best fiscal and economic rebuilds in the shortest time in this country.

  3. “Native-born children of immigrants — even those living illegally in the U.S. — have been automatically considered American citizens since the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868.”

    INCORRECT, Stephen Braun, you neo-lib tool! This happened in 1982, not 1868!

    The following, taken out of context. Full article at http://www.wnd.com/2010/08/187785/

    “And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)”

    Please take the time to read the full article. Yes, it was written by Ann Coulter (gasp!), but that makes the article no less correct.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: