Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

It's about personal safety and work.

As Rubio said during the 2013 immigration reform bill, commenting on those here having a path to citizenship, said that in his opinion very few would even try, as they come here to work and any path to citizenship is not easy.

Also, my bet is that this is more of the "Democrats looking for voters" nonsense.

First of all, migrants from south of the border tend to be socially conservative Catholics.

The idea that the right wing can't possibly appeal to them is just plain ridiculous. All the right wing would have to do is get over its white nationalism and spend some time considering those working for low income.

 

The hell if it is. Trump intends to execute the laws of the US in accordance with the ARK case, at the least. Preferably, he will execute the 14th Amendment as written by the drafters of the amendment.

This BULLSHIT auto-anchor baby protocol we now have in place is a violation of the Constitution.

 

Oh **** that, unless you mean the restoring of rights to white males.

 

They aren't migrants, they're illegal aliens.

 

The constitution is in violation of the constitution?

 

There are many here with papers.

And in general, they tend to be socially conservative and Catholic.

Yet, Republicans have a hell of a time trying to accept them!

 

Which simply isn't true, and you know it. If you are a foreigner visiting the US, and you pop out a child, that child is attached via jus soli. No? And if I went to a foreign country, and i intended on staying there, I am unaware of any country around the globe that would simply ignore their own legal process and just let me vanish and at some future point perhaps give me an amnesty citizenship.

So, even you admit that the US chooses to say that every person who is born here is a citizen. it's ridiculous. It actively violates the sovereignty of other nations. It's bullying, some might say....

Not a single conservative I know, or can point to wants illegal immigration. You cited the chamber of commerce. they are not Right Wing. You simply assert it. Why?

 

So, you entirely ignored the post you responded to, and replied with this? It has nothing to do with the observation. As noted, the condition was a US couple, not a hybrid of citizenship including one US person. Why be dishonest like this? The US does assert Jus Sanguine meaning that the US isn't willing to allow the child of a us couple to become a citizen of a foreign nation. Just like EVERY OTHER Nation on the planet. And yet if you're a foreigner, or an illegal alien, the US assumes and takes the citizenship of a child born in this country for itself. Kind of selfish, don't you think?

 

Obama himself said it was, although I don't recall which specific EO he referred to.

 

This may shock you, but I'm not required to follow your instructions o well regarded one.
I rebutted your quote with the LITERAL ratification debate of congress on the matter. Twist on it if you prefer.

 

It was worse than that. Obama never actually used an Executive Order to create the DACA program. He simply directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to create the program, which she did via a memo.

 

Just like you don't have any sort of authority to demand responses from me? Good to know.

 

I'm not making a demand dude. Pointing out you have no rebuttal to the congress's own ratification debate on the meaning of the amendment explicitly covering this subject is just me dunking on you amigo.

 

No I quoted from the debate, and challenged you go back and read the post. Look if you don't want to, I don't care. I'll just let you bop around whining.

 

No, it's a migration and one side finds it acceptable because of the votes.

 

Sorry, but one has to read the citizenship clause to make these decisions. So, yes I admit that the 14th amendment citizenship clause says what it says.

If you want to change the constitution (including amendments) there is a way to do that.

This is not an imposition on another country, as there is nothing that we do that precludes the parents' country from recognizing that baby as a citizen of their country. That country could (if it is so inclined) require the US citizenship to be revoked. However, many countries throughout Europe and the countries of north America, Israel and others allow dual citizenship.

The US Chamber of Commerce is usually associated with the establishment sector of the Republican party. That's a general statement, of course, as the Republican party has a hard core right wing. But, claiming it is most associated with the Democratic party is nonsense.

 

Focusing deportation action away from children who had no choice in coming here and know of no other country is a logical humanitarian move.

We take action to focus law enforcement at EVERY level, from towns to states to the federal government and internationally.

In that context, calling DACA unconstitutional is silly.

 

Those who come here have a long way to go to get citizenship IF they came legally.

If they have no papers for being here, there is no path to citizenship that is rationally possible.

As Rubio stated in 2013, those who come here are focused on work, not gaining citizenship. If there were a way to gain citizenship, few would make that effort.

The whole "for the votes" thing is preposterous.

Also, it is INSULTING to Republicans, as it is a statement that Republicans could not gain the votes of socially conservative Catholic workers!

 

Thanks for that.

 

From the long in the tooth and annual HR1.

1. Mandates automatic voter registration in all 50 states.: Democrats call this “modernizing” elections, meaning automatically registering any person that has given information to designated government agencies, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, a public university, or a social service agency would be registered.
2. Mandates no-fault absentee ballots: This provision would do away with witness signature or notarization requirements for absentee ballots.
3. The bill would make it illegal to verify the address of registered voters, cross-checking voter registration lists to find individuals registered in multiple states, or ever removing registrants no matter how much time has elapsed.
4. Bans state voter ID laws:
5. Ensures illegal immigrants can vote: The bill would shield non-citizens from prosecution if they are registered to vote automatically and agencies are not required to keep records of who declined to affirm their citizenship.
6. Legalizes nationwide vote-by-mail, without photo ID

What possible benefit is there to most of these clauses other than to make it easier for illegals to vote?

 

I literally quoted you the ratification debate where they bitched about anchor babies and the response was essentially "Yeah, we know".
It passed out of that. Continue to spin yourself into a tizzy over it.

 

If you think the post war baby boom jump started the US population, hold my cervesa.
If they were coming here for work the border States wouldn't be exporting them and those who are being moved on would be welcome/ Neither is true. They don't need citizenship to make a living or to get government assistance and healthcare. They will soon get to vote if we leave the same dizzy Dems in control that are running California.

Preposterous? Hide and watch.

 

Good luck. He literally cannot do so without ammending the constitution. Its pretty clear on the topic.

 

you are correct

I support such an amendment

 

HR 1 is a separate enough issue that it should be discussed separately.

There is no way that the US is going to "ensure illegal immigrants can vote".

In fact, no congressional bill is going to use the term "illegal immigrants".