The political fight over the term “anchor babies”

Zero! It had to do with political allegiance to the United States of America.

“Trump to O’Reilly: 14th Amendment is unconstitutional”.

Fox New reported Levin “said that those claiming that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong, pointing to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants absolute power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. And what we’re talking about here, are people that enter this country illegally, so-called anchor babies, their children are born here, and people on the left want them to automatically gain citizenship.

In 2013, Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, tried to ending birthright citizenship, saying in assertion, “The present follow of extending U.S. citizenship to a whole lot of hundreds of “anchor infants” should finish as a result of it creates a magnet for unlawful immigration into our nation”.

Neither of these presumptions necessarily describes anti-birthright candidates.

What particularly worries about Mr. Trump’s continued front-runner status is that the Republican rank and file overwhelmingly think him best-equipped among the party’s presidential hopefuls to handle, variously, the economy, ISIS, social issues (such as abortion and same-sex marriage) and illegal immigration.

Bush used the term while rejecting Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship. “Don’t use the term ‘anchor baby, ‘” the group said in a memo to congressional allies.

All of the possibilities are equally insane. Look, if you want of a policy of open borders that anybody born here should become a United States citizen, you amend the Constitution. Because they said it!

Perhaps intentionally, they are blinding themselves to the other strategies. That rule is uncontroversial as applied to the children of citizens and lawful residents.

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seems pretty clear to me. If Congress passed a law attempting to redefine birthright citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment so that it didn’t apply to children of illegals, Farias is right that it would probably be struck down – although not because it violates the Equal Protection Clause, in all likelihood, but because it conflicts with how the Court would define “jurisdiction” in the opening of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The scheme would not put much of a dent in the country’s immigration problems.

Trump’s goal is even more ambitious. The second is the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, where the notoriously liberal Justice William Brennan- writing for the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision-slipped in an obscure footnote on one page that legal immigrants can not be treated differently from illegal aliens. And now, nearly 150 years later, about half of the GOP candidates say we should rethink birthright citizenship.

“I will say that people who are following me are very passionate”. It was the source of O’Reilly’s confusion, and of the tongue-in-cheek Politico headline.

Does that mean that today’s Supreme Court would uphold a federal law restricting birthright citizenship to the children of persons lawfully present in the country?

The GOP’s own autopsy of the 2012 campaign, in which Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney urged Latinos in the country illegally to “self deport”, made that clear.

These views are so extreme that they’re often dismissed as harmless campaign trail pandering. “He’s given more money to Democrats than he has to Republicans”. These candidates are telling us how they would use levers at their disposal to antagonize immigrants, and we should be listening.

Advertisement

The controversy over the time period is not new, particularly the place Republicans are involved.