Donald Trump’s hardline on Immigration….

Donald Trump has given the Republican Party another headache

His take no prisonors hardline on illegal’s in this country is absolute….

If you are here illegally?

You have to leave….

Furthermore, if you have children here THEY should NOT be American citizens…..(That is in the Constitution Donald)

The line is drawn in the sand along with his push for a BIGGER wall….

Of course most of the 2016 GOP Sweepstakes contestand will NOW jump on Trumps coattails and join him…..

But this Dog is willing to bet that two guys won’t….

Jeb Bush and John Kasich…..

And I’m willing to bet that reception to this will to cement Hillary Clinton’s grasp on the Black, Brown and Yellow vote next November….

Donald Trump keeps working hard to help Hillary Clinton stregthen HER base….

Go Donald Go!

The ideas once languished at the edge of Republican politics, confined to think tanks and no-hope bills on Capitol Hill. To solve the problem of illegal immigration, truly drastic measures were necessary: Deport the undocumented en masse. Seize the money they try to send home. Deny citizenship to their U.S.-born children.

Now, all of those ideas have been embraced by Donald Trump, the front-runner in the Republican presidential race, who has followed up weeks of doomsaying about illegal immigrants with a call for an unprecedented crackdown.

On Monday, Trump’s hard turn was already influencing the rest of the GOP field. In Iowa, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker also began to call for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, echoing a longtime Trump demand. Walker said the separation barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories is proof that the concept could work here.

Walker also seemed to echo Trump by questioning “birthright citizenship,” the constitutional provision that grants citizenship to anyone born in this country. After a reporter asked if birthright citizenship should be ended, Walker said: “I think that’s something we should — yeah, absolutely, going forward.”

But — in a sign of how quickly Trump has changed the terms of this race — Walker had difficulty clearly articulating where exactly he stands on the issue, wanting to steal some of Trump’s momentum but not quite sure to what extent. He went on to say that if the United States enforces the laws it already has, that alone might take care of the problem….


33 thoughts on “Donald Trump’s hardline on Immigration….”

  1. These numbers are cooked – one parent is enough just ask the President – birth right goes back to old English law – before we were even a Nation. They need to find a real problem, but there in lies their problem – things have gotten so much better under Obama they are running out of problems to complain about.

  2. Trump just claimed on twitter that the number is 300k anchor babies pr. year.

    “How crazy – 7.5% of all births in U.S. are to illegal immigrants, over 300,000 babies per year. This must stop. Unaffordable and not right!”

    Nytimes stated 340k with at least one illegal parent back in 2008.

    “About 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 — or 8 percent — had at least one parent who was an illegal immigrant, according to a study published Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.”

  3. Yeah if it’s not birthright citizenship or affirmative action it’s welfare recipients buying fresh seafood. Ever hear a 70 yr old who watches FOX all day talk about that? You’d think it’s the end of the world

    The Republican mind is filled with boogeymen that are usually poor or minorities.

  4. Yes, in the overall scheme of things,Birthright Citizenship Is rather minor.

    Then again ,Republicans are notorious for dredging up wedge issues that affect few people.Remember in the Eighties and Nineties it was Agpffirmqtive Action which has never affected more than a few thousand people in the country.

    From the ruckus they stirred up over that for years one would have thought that millions were involved.

  5. “See how huge this problem is and how we should spend millions if not billions of dollars deporting every single one of them!”

    Think “Jobs!”

    Gotta jet. Summer is almost over and with that asteroid threatening us I will take advantage of a chance to go swimming.

    So, Adios Amigos!

    Oops, I mean Good bye buddies!

    Trump could win you know.

  6. Frankly, Congress can grant citizenship to anyone it wants too. I have heard legal immigration should be restricted to people on those work visas (causing a brain drain in some country’s)and I really think that is worse. Also you have to be able to have children to take advantage. After all,

    “Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

    Squatters rights is the fair way. It has to be short term too. America having life boats for all does you no good if the lifeboats are full of stowaways.

    That leaves open the question of population control, natural or otherwise.

  7. This is much ado…but that has never stopped Republicans. Every year approximately three to four million babies are born in this country, of that number approximately 4OK are from foreign born parents. See how huge this problem is and how we should spend millions if not billions of dollars deporting every single one of them!

  8. Yeh that’s gonna happen.

    Even some of the kooks who raise Hell at the Trump exhibitions probably would have trouble with that one.

  9. “Assume a child was born into the U.S. by undocumented parents. the child stays in the US and now has their own child. Would the newborn be a citizen , and if not, what country do you deport the newborn to?”

    Their grandparnets.

  10. While I disagree with it,I wouldn’t consider it a fringe argument.

    Indeed, some well respected legal scholars believe that the Words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ” can refer to Congress’s power to alter Jurisdictional bounds.Accordingly,, a simple act ofCongress is all that’s necessary to define the parameters of Birthright citizenship.

    There was a case in the late Nineteenth Century concerning a Chinese child born of foreign parents named Wong that basically laid down the present parameters for BC.Plus,during the debate over the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment ,the feeling was expressed that indeed BC was what was being established and,of course, Legislative intent is a guiding principle of Constitutional law.

    Ironically,conservatives ,who frequently refer to themselves as “strict constructionists” will need to adopt the more liberal view of a more elastic reading of the Constitution to get around the “wording” argument and ,in effect, argue against the Legislative intent standard to get around the Congressional intent one.

    I might add that some liberal academicians believe the argument that BC is subject to mere Legislative action rather than a Constitutional amendment .

    But No, I wouldn’t label the argument “fringe” although I disagree with it.

  11. The cases that have been brought before the court may have only involved persons whose parents were here legally at the time of birth.

    Also, in front of the right Judge, anything can happen.

  12. Any ball park figure of how misplaced the “jurisdiction argument” could be? Very fringe interpretation – or enough legitimacy to create a “thing” around this, and start swaying people?

  13. I’m no legal scholar but ,in my view, the use of the words ,”subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” by those who claim Birthright citizenship,is not automatic to those born here is misplaced.

    That refers to say those born on American soil to foreign nationals here for a specified purpose and over which the laws of the United States do no apply,I e , Ambassadors from foreign countries and, at the time of its adoption, Indians who were considered members of their tribe and not subject to “white mans” law.

    Contrariwise, children born of illegal immigrants are subject tithe laws and jurisdiction of our country and thus having met the first prong of the amendment(having been born here) are citizens and the circumstances surrounding the birth itself has no relevance.

  14. Jack,
    what’s your legal perspective on the

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”

    argument reg. the 14th amendment, that someone who’s illegally in a country is not a part of the jurisdiction?

  15. James’s continued cheering Trump’s hate speech (Go Trump Go) is not only stupid, it is immoral. Perhaps it is not obvious to James, but hate speech has implications far greater than political positioning.

    By the way, James – Good for you in knowing more about how birthright laws vary by country than I did. But considering the trite comments you often make (ex. “You should vote for whoever you want”) you have a hell of a lot of nerve to post “I knew that” to my post. It is not the least bit uncommon for all of us to know something that another poster posted. congratulations on knowing more on the subject than I did, but I not sure what you were trying to accomplish with that comment.

    1. I KNEW THAT….

      But it has NOTHING to do with THIS country….

      It’s NOT the way WE do it…

      The Republican’s KNOW this….

      So does just about EVERY Hispanic and Asian who will be remembering this stuff come November next year…

      GO TRUMP GO!

      1. Trump is NOT the first person to come out against birthright citizenship….

        In true Donald Trump fashion?

        He’s said it the loudest….

  16. You ask a logical question Zreebs ;however, I wouldn’t hold my breath awaiting a logical answer.Manila types deal in complaints,not solutions and certainly not logic.

  17. Okay, Manila. Assume a child was born into the U.S. by undocumented parents. the child stays in the US and now has their own child. Would the newborn be a citizen , and if not, what country do you deport the newborn to?

  18. I didn’t say the parents should be a citizen if the have a child born in the U.S.

    By the way, Life begin BEFORE conception. A sperm is alive.

  19. The amendment was never intended to be the foundation for a scam.

    Your parents need to be here legally.

    But your missing the bigger problem..

    And what makes being born here better than being conceived here?

    Life begins at conception, does it not?

    You just need a motel receipt and a DNA test and lower tuition awaits!

    And what if you do not have or cannot have children and are illegal?

    Where’s the justice then?

    Squatters rights cures all.

  20. Manila,, Are you comparing a newborn to a squatter? I thought Republicans always tell us that they care about babies?

  21. Yes,in my opinion.

    There remains a strain of thought among some conservative legal scholars though that the courts decisions aren’t definitive on that point.

    A strategy would be ,and Rubio hinted at this, that Congress could adopt some kind of law restricting Birtright Citizenship.For instance ,requiring parents to prove that they did not come here specifically so their child would be born here and thus a citizen or something along these lines; thus ,setting up a court challenge as to whether the words of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit any and all legislative action to restrict BC.

    This sounds weird and a lot of legal mumbo jumbo I know ,but there are some legal scholars who aren’t convinced that the Court has said that Birthright is an absolute “right” and not subject to legislative restrictions.

  22. Jack, But if the Supreme Court once determined that birthright citizenship is protected by the 14th amendment, then isn’t that the equivalent of saying it is in the constitution?

    1. The Birthright thing is ANOTHER BULLSHIT throw down….
      No one is going to change it…
      And it is just sealing the loss of support for GOPer’s
      Go Donald GO!

  23. No

    Rubio said heopposed repealing the Fourteenth Amendment .

    There’s a big difference.

    Some conserbpvati ve legal scholars have for tears claimed that the 14th doesn’t specifically call for birthright citizenship .Admittedly, Birthright is the product of a series of Court decisions which have upheld such in principle.

    Rubio SPECIFICALLY said that he was “open” to efforts to heavily restrict Birthright.

Comments are closed.