Reply With Quote
And you are trying to justify 11 million criminals.
Trump and his racist "passionate" followers are self-demonizing.
And you are trying to justify 11 million criminals.
Media getting really desperate now.
Let me guess, though - you agree with Jeb that when illegals come here to murder, rape, and join gangs, it's an "act of love?"
There is no humanity in breaking the law!!!
It was wrong when Rosa Parks did it and it's wrong now. I don't care!
Well technically they are "passionate", a very few are just not "compassionate".
Krazy Kruz down the Trump rabbit out with Latino reachout
Ted Cruz Flip-Flopped On Birthright Citizenship
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Wednesday he welcomed Donald Trump's call to end birthright citizenship, which he described as "a view I have long held."
However, "long held" apparently only stretches back a few years because, as the Huffington Post points out, Cruz in 2010 called ending birthright citizenship a "mistake."
"I've looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good," Cruz, who was then gearing up for his 2012 Senate race, said in 2010 on "The Duke Machado Show."
"As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it's in the U.S. Cons ution. And I don't like it when federal judges set aside the Cons ution because their policy preferences are different," Cruz said then.
While Trump says that the Cons ution already could be read to not grant birthright citizenship, others in the GOP 2016 field are calling for a cons utional amendment to end the practice.
Cruz on Wednesday said he would “absolutely" support changing the policy.
"We should end granting automatic birthright citizenship to the children of those who are here illegally,” Cruz said in an interview on Michael Medved’s radio show. “That has been my position from the very first day of my running for the Senate.”
But in that 2010 interview, Cruz said, "I think it is a mistake for conservatives to be focusing on trying to fight what the Cons ution says on birthright citizenship. I think we are far better off focusing on securing the border, because birthright citizenship wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have people coming in illegally."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29
Thanks, TX Repugs!
slapping down a SJW reporter.
Euro-White Supremacists on the 14th a long time
It’s Not Just Trump: GOP Has Plotted For Years To End Birthright Citizenship
Trump’s idea to end birthright citizenship didn’t come out of nowhere. For years, legal minds on the far right have been laying out a plan to stop granting citizenship to children born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents' legal status.
Their plan rests on the willingness of state or national lawmakers to push through a cons utionally-questionable law in the hopes that the conservative Supreme Court will take it as bait to scale back the 14th Amendment. Crazier things have happened in the John Roberts court.
“This notion that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone who has happened to be born on U.S. soil no matter how they’re here -- they're just wrong,” said Chapman University School of Law Dean John Eastman, who has led conservative legal fights on everything from gay marriage to reining in the Supreme Court.
The House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the issue in the spring under the le: "Birthright Citizenship: Is It The Right Policy For America?" Eastman testified at the hearing in support of ending birthright citizenship and told TPM this week that criticisms that “Trump’s idea is silly because it would take a cons utional amendment -- that’s not true.”
Trump may have pushed he issue to the forefront of the GOP presidential primary, but even before he included the proposal on his immigration policy paper this week, the issue was simmering on the fringes. In May, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) wrote in an op-ed that “only children born on American soil where at least one parent is a citizen or resident aliens is automatically a U.S. citizen.” Just last week, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) was calling for the 14th Amendment to be “re-examined.” Gov. John Kasich pushed for ending birthright citizenship while in Congress and said he supported changing the practice in 2010, before reversing his position this summer.
Republican presidential candidates who say they oppose ending birthright citizenship have been able to do so under the cover that it’s not worth the trouble of changing a Cons utional amendment.
“There are like 10 things I would change in the Cons ution with a magic wand," Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) said on the birthright question, before later backtracking on the remark.
"I have to live with reality. Reality is it takes at best years, probably decades to deal with this 14th Amendment issue," former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said. The 14th Amendment -- which includes an assortment of weighty rights like due process and equal protection -- says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
But according to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach,
“There’s some people excluded, because that’s what the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ mean and the Supreme Court has never had an occasion [to examine] what that means, and to specifically look at the question of the children of illegal aliens,” Kobach told TPM. “Any justice who sought to come to the conclusion that the Cons ution requires citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would have to explain what the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' mean, and that's a very difficult task for them to do.”
He suggested Congress propose a law limiting birthright citizenship to the children of citizens and permanent residents.
“For lack of a better word, the ‘open borders interests’ are probably going to challenge anything Congress passes in this regard and they will see if they can draw a good judge and probably hope that they don’t go to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Kobach said. If the issue did get to the Supreme Court, he said he was “confident” it would be upheld.
Bills proposing to end birthright citizenship have been introduced on a fairly regular basis since the 1990s. In just the last year, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) have introduced legislation to limit birthright citizenship to only certain children depending on their parents. An earlier version of Vitter's bill was cosponsored by presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in 2011.
King acknowledged that his proposal would likely be litigated, but that a “cons utionally sound” law would pass in the courts.
Past attempts to limit birthright citizenship through legislation have been widely called uncons utional.
In addition to the plain text of the Cons ution, legal scholars point to the Supreme Court’s decision in 1898’s United State v Wong Kim Ark, which reaffirmed the right of citizenship for U.S.-born children regardless of their parents' legal status.
But birthright opponents say that the decision only applies to the children of permanent residents and the opinion's broader language regarding birthright citizenship is merely "dicta," as Eastman put it.
State lawmakers have proposed anti-immigrant legislation with the explicit purpose of getting the Supreme Court to chip away at the 14th Amendment, as was the case with a failed 2011 bill in Arizona.
So far conservative lawmakers haven't been able to advance the strategy, with some Republicansadmitting the likelihood of success is not worth the legal costs.
However, for birthright critics, this is the wrong approach:
"We ought not anticipate an erroneous decision from the court on the front end,” Eastman said. Trump echoed that strategy, saying he wouldn't wait to pass a Cons utional amendment but would go straight to the courts to see if U.S.-born children of undo ented immigrants are in fact citizens.
"I’d much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are actually citizens," Trump said Tuesday. "We're going to test it out."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/birt...+%28TPMNews%29
Trump so ING IGNORANT about the 14th.
If he gets the Republican nomination and defaults the WH to the Democrats then will turn from crazy to revolutionary in Republican headquarters. And Trump WILL hand the WH to almost any Democrat once people get real. When his business a en and slimyness are fully exposed people will beg for a Washington insider or a socialist.
I expect if Trump lasts long enough his remaining opposition in the Republican primary will tear him a new one ahead of what the Democrat will do.
yeah unfortunately the Donald is screwing up his immigration
hopefully some happens in the world in the next few days to change the topic and The Donald can move on to other issues
The Great Wall of China was built thousands of years ago and is much longer than the length of our border. A wall can be built. Should it? That's another question.
Mexicans want to come to USA because they can't obtain a good life in MX. BigCorp destroyed 100Ks of subsistence MX farms by pushing for NAFTA, pushing Ms Mexicans toward the USA. The USA could help the federal and state govts in MX make a better life for poor Mexicans, but pervasive corruption could be an obstacle.
The Washington Post Debunks Conservative Media's "Anchor Baby" Myth
But usually the debate has been about the residency of the parents, who after all are supposed to be using the child as their "anchor."
This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undo ented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
The only thing that a so-called anchor baby can do to assist either of their undo ented parents involves such a long game that it's not a practical immigration strategy, said Greg Chen, an immigration law expert and director of The American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group that also advocates for immigrant-friendly reforms.
That long game is this: If and when a U.S. citizen reaches the age of 21, he or she can then apply for a parent to obtain a visa and green card and eventually enter the United States legally.
[...]
If a person has lived in the United States unlawfully for a period of more than 180 days but less than one year, there is an automatic three-year bar on that person ever reentering the United States -- and that's before any wait time for a visa. So that's a minimum of 21 years for the child to mature, plus the three-year wait.
And, for the vast majority of these parents, a longer wait also applies. If a person has lived in the United States illegally for a year or more, there is a 10-year ban on that person reentering the United States. So, in that case, there would be the 21-year wait for the child to mature to adulthood, plus the 10-year wait.
All told, the parents of the so-called anchor baby face a 24-to-31-year wait to even enter the United States, much less obtain a visa and green card or become a citizen.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08...-medias/205082
you Euro-white supremacists looking for anchor babies?
Federal Agents Raid Alleged ‘Maternity Tourism’ Businesses Catering to Chinese
http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-agent...ese-1425404456
I can't read the whole thing, but that is scary from what I can tell!
The Repug establishment is hoping some of the 17 Repug Klowns drop out, that their votes will go to shrub2 or Kockenstein or other, eventually dumping Trump.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-22-2015 at 06:39 PM.
30,000 people at Trump's rally last night: media focuses on the empty seats because him for not totally filling up a 40,000 seat stadium, right?
10,000 people at Bernie's rallies: media acts like 10 million people showed up to hear God (aka Bernie Sanders) give them the Word of the Lord.
Republican Donald Trump is pulling away from the pack in the race for the party's U.S. presidential nomination, widening his lead over his closest rivals in the past week, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Friday.
Republican voters show no signs they are growing weary of the brash real estate mogul, who has dominated political headlines and the 17-strong Republican presidential field with his tough talk about immigration and insults directed at his political rivals. The candidates are vying to be nominated to represent their party in the November 2016 general election.
Nearly 32 percent of Republicans surveyed online said they backed Trump, up from 24 percent a week earlier, the opinion poll found. Trump had nearly double the support of his closest compe or, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who got 16 percent. Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson was third at 8 percent.
Even when Trump was pitted directly in the poll against just his top two compe ors, 44 percent backed him. Bush won about 29 percent of respondents, and Carson 25 percent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0QQ2CO20150821
Most Republicans do not support his candidacy and seem unlikely ever to do so. Even now, more say they definitely would not vote for him than say they support him.
The breadth of Mr. Trump’s coalition is surprising at a time of religious, ideological and geographic divisions in the Republican Party. It suggests he has the potential to outdo the flash-in-the-pan candidacies that roiled the last few Republican nominating contests. And it hints at the problem facing his compe ors and the growing pressure on them to confront him, as several, like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, are starting to do.
His support is not tethered to a single issue or sentiment: immigration, economic anxiety or an anti-establishment mood. Those factors may have created conditions for his candidacy to thrive, but his personality, celebrity and boldness, not merely his populism and policy stances, have let him take advantage of them.
Trumpism, the data and interviews suggest, is an at ude, not an ideology.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us...s&emc=rss&_r=0
iow, Trump is handing the Presidency to the Dems.
I would strongly consider voting for him over Hillary, and I have never voted for any republican in my life.
lol you whine as much as Trump, David.
The NY Slimes, another failing, money-losing liberal rag that can't hide their anti-Trump bias.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
