Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

You also missed something from your fake story: there is no evidence provided here that Buddy successfully registered.

 

It do get complex. Being in America undocumented is, as you state, not a crime, though the government can take civil actions against the person, which is predominately deportation. However crossing the border without Immigration service approval is a misdemeanor crime, usually rectified by returning the crosser around and sending him back. A civil court hearing is not required and this is not defined as a deportation.

I don't know what precisely Trump wants, but I suspect it is focused on anchor babies who are undocumented maybe in a civil way but not in a criminal way. If this is his focus deportation would not be a problem since returning is part of the immigrant's plan. Returning without US citizenship is certainly part of the Trump plan.

 

Has he been arrested yet?

 

If it is a crime, then that person has rights under criminal law - trial by jury, a lawyer provided, laws of evidence, access to witnesses at trial, etc.

And, the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment can't be changed by a president . Amending the constitution is a far more extensive process.

You have to be specific about the legal change that you believe Trump is proposing. And, that may be hard, as a central characteristic of Trump is his total disdain for the law, including for how our government works.

 

I answered your question
I wish it was but it ain't.

 

Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States - Ballotpedia

 

Has nothing to do with our presidential elections, champ.

 

The illegally crossing immigrant is not considered to have constitutional rights because he has spent little to no time in the United States and is not afforded any arrest, charge or trial. This is why the border patrol takes great pains to turn the "immigrant" around forthright and send him directly back. It is not considered a deportation. Though, as an aside, it is why Obama directed the border patrol to not turn them right around but to transport them to another crossing miles down the road so he could claim many more deportations.

Trump is not proposing a change in the 14tnh amendment. He is proposing a better interpretation. However, even though he is correct, he can't do that either.

The last sentence is so far out in left field and inane it doesn't deserve response. But I will anyway out of respect.

 

Which of those various laws would you change?

 

There is no such thing as a "civil" misdemeanor. Entering the country illegally is a crime.

Of the three Supreme Court cases that spoke about the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment, not one of them interpreted the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens. Not one.

 

My point is that this has nothing to do with illegals creating anchor babies, which is the subject.

 

That is not what your quote says.

Now maybe there is more to this quote that puts it in context that the drafters of the 14th Amendment really wanted the children of foreigners to become citizens, but the quote I noted in this thread, by the guy who actually drafted the text in question, didn't think that.

 

All of them

 

Stand by.

 

I've been hearing that bullshit for years. Let me know when you are able to deliver.

 

I don't agree. It goes to what the issues were at the time the amendment was written.

It shows that the citizenship clause is being interpreted as the authors intended.

 

OK you don't agree. I knew that from your first post in this thread.

 

I'd bet that Trump is counting on these right wingers to have no idea what a president can do and can't do, how the citizenship clause is written, or anything else pertaining - except for their susceptibility to white nationalist fervor.

 

Yes, you can't refute the solid grounding I gave.

 

You may as well carry that bullshit somewhere else. 3, count them, 3 Supreme Court cases and not a one of them said illegal alien anchor babies get citizenship.

Your fervor for the country to be transformed into a permanent democrat shithole decides every comment you make on this thread. The law and logic be damned. We don't live in a Democracy, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

What makes you think I have anything to do with it? I have just watched the rules loosen bit by bit so believe what you want. One day BOOM, there it will be.

 

I've been refuting it throughout this thread.

 

LOL - the court didn't rule on that.

They have WAY more than just your 3 cases that didn't involve the issue in this thread.,

 

I know your posts.

I stand by what I said.

 

Stop spouting bullshit and list your imaginary SC cases.