Immigration

Ted Cruz Evades Important Question: Would You Deport U.S. Citizens? (UPDATED)

Anti-birthright Republicans should make their deportation plans clear. But so should pro-'pathway' Democrats

|

Anchor, baby. ||| Fox News
Fox News

Last night on Donald Trump's least favorite Fox News program, The Kelly File, GOP contender Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) also went after the suddenly controversial interviewer, complaining that a question she kept pressing him on—whether he'd deport the U.S.-citizen children of illegal immigrants, as Donald Trump would—is "the question every mainstream media liberal journalist wants to ask." Sick burn!

Anyway, the question—which Cruz, to his discredit, refused to answer—is an important one for those many 2016 GOP candidates (Trump, Cruz, Scott WalkerRand PaulRick SantorumLindsey GrahamBobby Jindal, etc.) who have come out against the birthright citizenship established by the plain text of the 14th amendment. We get that you wish to change the existing rules somehow (Trump and Ron Paul, to name two people, think you can do so without a constitutional amendment), but what to do about the estimated 4 million American-citizen kids having at least one illegal-immigrant parent? Given the rapid Trumpification of the 2016 nominating process, and Cruz's demonstrated readiness to strip U.S. citizenship in other contexts, the issue of forcibly expelling Americans from their native country—regardless of how appalling—is a live one, demanding clarification.

But that burden should not be limited to restrictionists. Democrats and other pathway-to-citizenship supporters should all be asked: So, exactly how many illegal immigrants do you think we should deport, and using what criteria? Because despite the seeming chasm between the pro-"Dreamer" left and the anti-"anchor baby" right, the fact is that the next president will likely deport at least 1 million human beings from this country.

Here's a detail that rarely gets brought up during nonsense-filled immigration debates: President Barack Obama has been a much bigger deporter-in-chief than George W. Bush.* The Department of Homeland Security issued 2 million deportations during Bush's tenure; Obama blew through that number in Year Five of his presidency:

Heckuva job, Baracky! ||| Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center

The administration has since made a sharp policy turn, triggering some of the heated debate we've seen over the past year, but there's no guarantee that his late-breaking deportation slowdown would be carried on by the next Democratic president, particularly if it's restrictionist Bernie Sanders.

So: Given the reduction of net migration from Mexico, the increase in border interdictions, the administration-on-administration increase in deportations, and the stabilization of the illegal population, what's a nice, round number for annual expulsions? 500,000? 50,000? 5,000? If we're going to have that National Conversation About Immigration, and if we're going to continue to focus that conversation (wrongly, in my view) on current illegal residents rather than expanding the number of legal visas, let's get all the presidential candidates on record: Who, and how many, will you deport? And will they include U.S. citizens?

* UPDATE: Commenter Bubba Jones points out that we can't do apples-to-apples comparisons of deportations, because some time during the Bush administration, border-turnbacks went from being counted separately, to be being classified as deportations. This L.A. Times explainer from last year is maddeningly vague on dates and numbers, but gives a sense:

Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

In the Obama years, all of the increase in deportations has involved people picked up within 100 miles of the border, most of whom have just recently crossed over. In 2013, almost two-thirds of deportations were in that category.

At the same time, the administration largely ended immigration roundups at workplaces and shifted investigators into targeting business owners who illegally hired foreign workers.

"If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it's just highly unlikely to happen," John Sandweg, until recently the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview.

NEXT: Ten Years of Studying Katrina's Consequences

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How can someone born in Canada run for President? I didn’t think that was constitutionally allowed.

    1. He’s a statutory citizenship from birth rather than a 14th Amendment birthright citizen.

      1. I meant to say he has* statutory citizenship.

      2. Ooh, that’s deliciously ironic

    2. Because the federal courts don’t want to deal with the question of what the definition of natural born Citizen is.

      1. Ending birthright citizenship would be an enormous and expensive headache.

        Birth certificates would no longer be sufficient evidence to prove citizenship (for example, to get a passport, for voting, for certain types of employment, etc.). Instead, the person will ALSO have to prove that his parent(s) met some legal standard that allows him to claim citizenship. That information will need to be verified and mistakes will invariably be made, leading to the denial of citizenship rights to innocent people.

        But, hey, it’s all worth it to stop the scourge of burrito shops across the country, amirite?

        1. Ending birthright citizenship isn’t the issue, slackjaw.

          Ending fake citizenship – due to a false, simple-minded, and semi-literate reading of the 14th Amendment – is.

          And, ending *that* is simplicity itself.

          Try to keep up.

          1. Ending birthright citizenship isn’t the issue, slackjaw.

            (snicker)Ever hear of Donald Trump, chump. (It rhymes)
            Do a search for: “birthright” citizenship” Trump (with those quotes) — nearly 3 million results.

            due to a false, simple-minded, and semi-literate reading of the 14th Amendment

            By whomever brainwashed your sorry ass.

            One Supreme Court ruling traces to BEFORE the 14th Amendment, two after.
            Google and learn what “common law” means. We adopted our own common law from the British Common Law, when established birthright citizenship in …. wait for it … 1608.

            Yes, the 14th ADDED ex-slaves. Every other child had it since our very first settlement except the children of foreign diplomats and foreign armies. (Indians were then citizens of their sovereign reservations)

            1. Ex-slaves were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, by virtue of legal residency, as well as “within it’s jurisdiction.”
              2 different uses of the word “jurisdiction,” with 2 separate meanings.

              “Subject to” refers to allegiance, citizenship status, and/or legal residency.
              “Within” means just that – inside the actual borders.

              British common law also uses allegiance to establish citizenship. Aliens need not apply, because their allegiance – the jurisdiction to which they are subject – is that of a foreign power.

              Sorry, cretin – I’m immune to brainwashing. . . to my parents’ chagrin.

    3. The same way someone born in Mexico can run for President?

      1. Let’s turn it around: You mean like someone born in the USA can run for the Presidency of Mexico?
        American ex-pats in Mexico certainly aren’t allowed to vote, and can be deported for engaging in any type of political activism – even carrying a sign at a protest.

    4. According to God’s Own Party somebody from Kenya ran, got elected and was sworn in. Are those statements no longer operative?

  2. The question had no right answer as the soundbite would be used to pillory him regardless. The only right move was to not answer.

    1. How about “no”?

      1. How about, “they’re not citizens, so absolutely they’ll be deported?”

  3. In the same way that family reunification guides much of our current legal immigration system, I’m sure the same would be true in the opposite direction. You wouldn’t necessarily need to strip the children of immigrant parents of their citizenship or put them on buses, but it’s still just as likely that they’d stay with or rejoin their deported parent(s). In that sense, the question is kind of a non-sequitur. The ostensibly inhumane policy isn’t dependent on the loaded question for its completion.

    1. This right here.

      The answer to whether a “strong” deportation policy would deport US citizens is “No. However, we would deport illegal alien parents, and we would anticipate that they would not abandon their children and would take them with. The kids are US citizens, and can come and go in the US. While they are minors, they will need to have an adult looking after them, just like any US citizen who is a minor. If the kids have an adult who is a legal resident who is willing to take responsibility for them, they can stay.”

      1. That’s just de facto deportation of American citizens instead of explicit deportation. I grant it’s an effective legal maneuver, but frankly it just seems like a distinction without a meaningful difference.

        1. The moral issue is with the government expelling a citizen, not with a child being forced to leave the country by its parents.

          The government in no way expels a citizen by deporting their parents. Sure, the natural consequences may be that the citizen child is forced to go with the parents, but that’s the case when citizen parents leave the country as well.

          1. This seems a nonissue to me. Kids either live with another family member or move to Mexico with their parents. Seems pretty chauvinist to equate this with some sort of prison sentence.

        2. There’s a big meaningful difference, for those minor citizens who have an adult legal resident who is willing to take responsibility for them.

          Nobody is forcing the kids to leave. Most will choose to leave with their parents due to an absence of alternatives, but the absence of alternatives is just that. That absence is not created by deporting the parents, its created by each family’s situation.

      2. We’ll wait patiently for Ted Cruz to say that, then.

      3. You’re starting from a false premise – the children are absolutely NOT citizens. . .

        Now. . . try again.

    2. Re: PM,

      You wouldn’t necessarily need to strip the children of immigrant parents of their citizenship or put them on buses, but it’s still just as likely that they’d stay with or rejoin their deported parent(s).

      It is still deportation, PM, whether the children prefer being with their parents or not. The State would be deporting US Citizens to a foreign country. You cannot avoid that question by obfuscating.

      1. No, it isn’t. Words still have meanings. Deportation is defined as “the lawful expulsion of an undesired alien or other person from a state”. The practical effect of actually deporting illegal immigrants who are parents of citizen children is that the citizen children, unless they have other means or relatives in the US, would very likely be left with no choice but to join the parents. The desirability of that outcome is a discussion worth having, but the terms should be defined correctly and honestly.

        1. Re: PM,

          No, it isn’t. Words still have meanings. Deportation is defined as “the lawful expulsion of an undesired alien or other person from a state”.

          And the American-born children do not fall under the category of “other person”, PM?

          The practical effect of actually deporting illegal immigrants who are parents of citizen children is that the citizen children, unless they have other means or relatives in the US, would very likely be left with no choice but to join the parents.

          That is assuming the children can make that determination themselves, PM. In many cases, it is NOT a choice, unless you think babies, toddlers or 4 or 5-year-old children can make life-altering decisions. 17-year-old men and women only have to wait until they’re 21 to submit a 130 petition to USCIS to allow their parents permanent residency status; in the meantime, they’re probably old enough to sustain themselves in the US. Instead, babies, toddlers and young children depend on their parents for sustenance and nurturing. Whether you like it or not, the deportation of parents of America-born children is a de facto deportation of the children.

          The desirability of that outcome is a discussion worth having, but the terms should be defined correctly and honestly.

          I don’t think you’re looking into this honestly. You’re obfuscating.

          1. Whether you like it or not, the deportation of parents of America-born children is a de facto deportation of the children

            I’m not buying it. What makes it any different when it’s the parent’s choice to leave the country? The child is still forced to leave the country despite not being able to consent to it.

            This line of argumentation is wading perilously close to “don’t throw him in jail, his kid won’t have a daddy.”

            1. Re: Trshmnstr,

              What makes it any different when it’s the parent’s choice to leave the country?

              Deportation is force. Choice is not.

              The child is still forced to leave the country

              Parents make provisions, T. What one CHOOSES is based on a pondering of alternatives and the knowledge of opportunity costs. DEPORTATION is NOT CHOICE. It is FORCE. It is by definition UNEXPECTED or UNWANTED.

              What happened to people’s ability to REASON in this country, anyway? You are starting to sound like the Marxians in Mexican universities. Their thinking patterns are no better than a shrub’s.

              1. DEPORTATION is NOT CHOICE. It is FORCE. It is by definition UNEXPECTED or UNWANTED.

                Right. It is FORCE against the parents. It is the parents’ CHOICE to bring their child with them.

                How is this qualitatively different than arguing that parents should be exempt from prison? The only Marxian thinking I am seeing is this idea that negative externalities (a child emigrating) are equivalent to force.

              2. JAIL is NOT CHOICE. It is FORCE.

                Same argument that Trash alluded to. We shouldn’t put someone in jail because it will force children to move somewhere to be with a relative, or foster care.

                The choice was to come here illegally rather than wait in line like thousands of others. The choice was to have children here, knowing that the child would be a US citizen due to birthright laws. Choices have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are borne by the children.

                1. This was supposed to be a reply to OM. I think the squirrels are screwing with me?!

              3. What one CHOOSES is based on a pondering of alternatives and the knowledge of opportunity costs.

                Just so. The children are not legally prohibited from staying in the country when their parents are deported. Whether it is practical for them to do so, or desirable, is the pondering of alternatives that leads to the choice to stay with the parents, or to stay in the US with another adult.

                1. Okay, so you’re not deporting US citizens, just their caretakers who they are completely dependent on. This is almost as dishonest as the ‘gays can marry people of the opposite sex too’ “argument”.

                  1. The differences matter, Cyto. Just because the result is the same (kid goes back to Olde Country with parents), doesn’t mean that the reasons leading to the result are the same (kid is not allowed, by law, to stay, v. kid is allowed to stay, but parents don’t leave behind for reasons of their own).

                    They aren’t being “deported”, unless they are also being deported when their parents leave voluntarily.

                  2. This is almost as dishonest as the ‘gays can marry people of the opposite sex too’ “argument

                    See, to me, what’s dishonest is pretending that marriage meant all along that gays could marry each other, when that is actually a fundamental change in the meaning of “marriage”.

                    I happen to think its a good change, but I’m not going to pretend that (a) it isn’t a change or (b) it was ever illegal for a gay person to marry a straight person.

          2. 17-year-old men and women only have to wait until they’re 21 to submit a 130 petition to USCIS to allow their parents permanent residency status

            Plus a 10 year wait if the parents broke immigration law.

      2. Ok. . . no obfuscation, no avoidance.

        The children are NOT citizens, so nobody will be deporting US citizens to a foreign country – full stop.

  4. Why does Megyn Kelly insist upon plastering her face with such a surfeit of make-up?

    Let’s see what type of visage she has sans the all that powder.

    1. How many people do you think go on television barefaced?

      1. It worked out really well for Richard Nixon.

    2. She’s trying to spackle the cracks in her shrivelled soul.

    3. There’s no accounting for taste, but I don’t really find her all *that* attractive. Jenna Lee or any one of their rotating panel of morning blondes are better looking, IMHO.

    4. Attractive women scare me, too.

    5. Looks fine to me. Really fine.

  5. No one ever got elected to anything important by providing a lot of details.

  6. “the reduction of net migration from Mexico, the increase in border interdictions, the administration-on-administration increase in deportations, and the stabilization of the illegal population”

    Clearly, if we deport *faster*, that will stop the pesky stabilization of the illegal population.

    1. “Stabilizing” sounds the same as “amnesty” to me. “We have 11 million illegals (or whatever the number is). We want to stabilize that number, so we think its about right. They can all stay.”

      Isn’t that the logic?

      1. A lot of illegal immigrants got temporary status as a result of some of the administration’s executive actions, so that may have contributed to it, although the economy being in the toilet probably played a bigger role, as net migration started declining right after the 2008 crash, long before the executive actions.

      2. My point is that, as with illegal drugs, the inflow rate matches the outflow rather exactly.

  7. “Given the rapid Trumpification of the 2016 nominating process, and Cruz’s demonstrated readiness to strip U.S. citizenship in other contexts, the issue of forcibly expelling Americans from their native country?regardless of how appalling?is a live one, demanding clarification.

    “But that burden should not be limited to restrictionists. Democrats and other pathway-to-citizenship supporters should all be asked: So, exactly how many illegal immigrants do you think we should deport, and using what criteria?”

    Matt, you have every right to beat up on Obama’s deportation record, but in your first paragraph you’re talking about “forcibly expelling Americans from their native country” and in the next your’e talking about deporting illegal immigrants, who, obviously, are not American citizens. It’s kind of an apples and oranges thing.

    1. I think he regards everyone as an american citizen – just don’t tell the IRS that, or they’ll be demanding more people file.

      1. I think he regards everyone as an american citizen – just don’t tell the IRS that, or they’ll be demanding more people file.

        They already do.

    2. I could be wrong, but I think Welch is talking about tossing the anchorbabies out with the illegal parent’s bathwater.

    3. Re: Anal Vanneman,

      your first paragraph you’re talking about “forcibly expelling Americans from their native country” […] in the next you’re talking about deporting illegal immigrants, who, obviously, are not American citizens. It’s kind of an apples and oranges thing.

      He’s only talking about the two issues, not conflating them. I wasn’t confused, despite the fact that English is not my mother tongue.

      1. In case you need to have it explained to you: If the parents of dreamers and American-born children are to stay, then what of the remaining immigrant population is OK to expel? That is the question he is positing to the Demo-rats who seem fine with the current expulsion policy of the current administration.

    4. I agree that there’s a YUGE category difference between deporting U.S. citizens — a crazy-balls, authoritarian idea — and in deporting illegal immigrants. My first order of business among anti-birthrighters is to get them on the record on the former. But Democrats & pro-pathway types shouldn’t be allowed to skate without the latter as well. Definitions matter, as do individual human lives. (And perhaps most to the point, I want to hear from everyone about their concepts for the total number/allocation of legal visas.)

      1. I had thought this was supposed to be a libertarian site.
        The major problem with “anchor babies” is that they are a pathway for the entire family to be on the government teat, which is supposed to be something libertarians hate, even more than the thought of law-breakers being returned, unharmed or unjailed, to their place of origin.
        Yet, hardly a word, in the article, or in the comments of the welfare-state growth and the allowance for the U.S. taxpayer to be on the hook for supporting these families.
        My concern is the fact that we have, through our elected representatives, created a system of legal immigration and all of these arguments reinforce the concept that it can be “gotten around” without consequence and that the people, who have chosen to follow our laws are being unfairly treated by having to watch the law-breakers get what the legal system says they need to wait in line for.

        1. +10

        2. The major problem with “anchor babies” is that they are a pathway for the entire family to be on the government teat

          Not true. Plus they pay the same taxes as everyone else. FICA and income withholding. Property taxes are embedded in their rent. And who avoids sales taxes, and gasoline taxes?

          having to watch the law-breakers get what the legal system says they need to wait in line for.

          Not true. They even subsidize Social Security and Medicare by paying FICA and getting no benefits.

    5. Does this mean they’re going to deport Puerto Ricans? The TSA recently tried to arrest someone with a District of Columbia driver’s license for not having a visa.

    6. Speaking of beating, Donald Trump pi?atas are selling on eBay for $140 to over a grand. There is not a single Ted Cruz pi?ata listed. Maybe Reason ought to publish translations of Ted Cruziness to increase public awareness. Is his Spanish really that bad?

  8. How can we call ourselves a great nation if we cannot impose unperson status upon the unfaithful?

    1. Don’t turn this into an abortion thread…

      1. #BlackLiversMatter

  9. So, exactly how many illegal immigrants do you think we should deport, and using what criteria?

    So exactly, how many illegal immigrants (or immigrants in general) should the US allow in and using what criteria?

    Bonus points for Open Borders types who have no problems allowing 5+ billion people to move to the country.

    1. Re: MiloMinderbinder,

      So exactly, how many illegal immigrants (or immigrants in general) should the US allow in and using what criteria?

      All of them, Milo.

      Bonus points for Open Borders types who have no problems allowing 5+ billion people to move to the country.

      Don’t exaggerate. 5 billion people are not seeking to move to the country. The fact is that you can fit the entire human population inside New Zealand and still have a population density less than Manhattan, so even if your contention was correct it would still not mean a disaster.

      Immigrants are a boon to the economy thanks to two economic laws which are as unbreakable as the physical laws of nature: Comparative Advantage and Division of Labor. The more hands you have, the more specialization and the more productive an economy. One only has to witness the unleashing of the productive power of a billion Chinese when Deng Xiaoping allowed some market reforms – some reforms. Imagine what a billion people could achieve in the US with the level of freedom that the US population enjoys today.

      1. That is complete nonsense.
        The cost and standard of living in China is what has “unleashed” the productive power of China because ours is so much higher.
        China’s productive power is due to their ability to provide goods for the rest of the world, cheaper than the rest of the world can.
        Opening up unfettered immigration to a nation that, already, cannot provide jobs for millions of those, already here, will just make the competition for jobs more fierce and drive down wages or create such a drain on the “safety net” we have created, that the U.S. will be brought down to third-world status, very quickly.
        There are a hell of a lot more people trying to leave China, than go there.

        1. The cost and standard of living in China is what has “unleashed” the productive power of China because ours is so much higher.

          You ignore exchange rates. Yes, they can be jiggered, but that’s one factor in how Japan destroyed their economy.

          And you keep repeating the Trumpian falsehood that illegals are “such a drain on the ‘safetynet.'”

      2. The fact is that you can fit the entire human population inside New Zealand and still have a population density less than Manhattan,

        Replace New Zealand with Texas and it’s a lot more relevant. And world population is over 7 billion.

    2. “Bonus points for Open Borders types who have no problems allowing 5+ billion people to move to the country”

      You see – once every single person in the world lives in the US, the rest of the world will be empty and Libertopia will be realized!

      1. I am interested in any newsletters that may be available regarding this option.

      2. Someone on here, I can’t remember who, suggested we let everyone in Latin America immigrate so the libertarians can quietly move down there then surreptitiously build a wall so we’ll have our own Caribbean libertopia. (Women and Roadz hardest hit)

      3. If 5 billion people move to the U.S., I call dibs on Iceland!

    3. Bonus points for Open Borders types who have no problems allowing 5+ billion people to move to the country.

      I’m beginning to understand why Tulpa can’t get tenure as a mathematics professor.

      1. You might have corrected the large and obvious error on world population. It’s actually 7+billion. But why waste a senseless slam on Tulpa, which seems to be a Tribal Ritual?

    4. No one’s talking about the obvious THIRD option ?creating a fifty-mile-wide stateless no-man’s-land along the Rio Grande wherein we exile both the Illegals AND the Anchor Babies, patrolled by those Teminator-style DARPA Atlas Robots that they’re building up at MIT!

  10. So, after ranting what outrage deporting children of ilegal immigrants would be, what he actually wants is that no one should be deported, apparently ever. Exactly why does anyone need legal visas under Welch’s immigration regime?

    1. “Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do.” Fuck this!

      How about this: Any birthright citizens are still citizens. No retroactive changes. Going forward, change the law (YOU DON’T NEED TO AMEND THE 14th AMENDMENT) and say from now on, no automatic citizenship. Deport anyone who is here illegally when they are caught for any other crime. Not a number, that is a bullshit question. It should be under what conditions should illegal aliens be deported.

      1. YOU DON’T NEED TO AMEND THE 14th AMENDMENT

        “Need” has nothing to do with it. The ensuing case will go straight to the Supreme Court and the question will be left to them to answer. There’s nothing Congress can do about it, as this falls under the Court’s original jurisdiction.

        1. It wouldn’t go straight to the SC. It would go to a district court first.

          1. If the person in question is considered a citizen, then yes it would start at a district court. But then they couldn’t be deported, so the question is moot.

            If the person in question is not considered a citizen, then it is a dispute between the United States and an alien, which is under the SC’s original jurisdiction.

        2. Congress would wimp out anyway and kick it to the Supreme Court.

          1. Your comment makes no sense in context.

        3. The 14th Amendment starts “All persons born” and prohibitionist Republicans want to change that to “All ova fertilized” (or All spermatozoa deposited, depending on the faction). How would that change the definition and number of anchor babies?

          Sitting congressmen and senators are party to this fanaticism, so I would hardly call it a joke.

          1. It says “all persons born”…”in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof“.
            The only way that allows babies born of not-yet-legal-resident (and maybe, even citizen) parents is if that second requirement is ignored. It wasn’t put there to fill the page. It has some meaning and until that meaning is clarified, there will be disputes.
            Distinctions have been drawn to another reference to “the jurisdiction thereof” in the same amendment, which draws the qualifier “within” instead of “subject to”. Clearly, “within” means “planted on”, so why the difference in the use of the phrase “subject to”? Seems like they don’t have the same meaning, doesn’t it?
            Section 5 of the 14th amendment, one which has altered our society drastically, says that ” The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Many see this as allowing Congress to address the issue, through appropriate legislation and it would be up to the SCOTUS to grant that abiltiy. We should give it a try.

            1. “Subject to” refers to allegiance, citizenship, residence; “within” describes exactly what it says. . . inside the territorial boundaries.

              It’s not rocket surgery – or maybe it is, which is why the slackjawed drooling baboons have such trouble with it.

            2. Umm, “jurisdiction” is how they excluded, at the time, Indians (their own sovereign nation) and the more obvious — children of foreign armies and diplomats.

              The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Many see this as allowing Congress to address the issue, through appropriate legislation

              Enforcing the issue is the exact opposite of changing or repealing the issue, which you seem to be implying.

              and it would be up to the SCOTUS to grant that ability. We should give it a try. SCOTUS doesn’t have any power to grant what has already been granted. Again, all they could do would “allow” Congress to change the Constitution with mere legislation, which would mean SCOTUS abandoning its primary constitutional responsibility.

      2. Wrong, You’d need to amend the 14A. Simple as that.

        1. No change to the Fourteenth required.

          The only requirement is an intelligent, literate reading of the Amendment, as written.

    2. Shit. We’ve had Court rulings on birthright since before the 14th Amendment, and existed since our very first colony. Birthrate in America came with our legal acceptance of the common law, where birthright has been recognized only since 1608.

      Here’s a lengthy history of birthright in America, from Alexander Hamilton on. And it’s on a very far right website, redstate.com

      http://bit.ly/1NUxDKR

      “We don’t NEED to amend the Constitution.”
      “Why not”
      “Because we could never ratify an amendment”
      “What does that have to do with whether we need to amend the Constitution?”
      “You’re a fucking prog, aren’t you?”

      1. And if all the Constitution said was “born in the US”, there wouldn’t be an issue.

        However, there is that pesky “jurisdiction” language. Which must be given some meaning, impose some restriction, on the birthright language.

        There is a strain of legislative history, etc. that indicates this was understood to mean “exclusive” jurisdiction or somesuch. Its not at all clear to me, but I haven’t studied it much.

        1. The “jurisdiction” language was intended to exclude Native Americans, who were technically within the geographical limits of the United States, but recognized as separate sovereign nations. It’s why they are excluded from the Congressional apportionment clause, too.

          1. no – there is a separate phrase excluding “Indians, not taxed”

        2. However, there is that pesky “jurisdiction” language. Which must be given some meaning, impose some restriction, on the birthright language.

          Trump-O-Matic got the Indians, but also children of foreign diplomats.

          Despite all the screeching by nativists, the Supreme Court confirmed birthright two years BEFORE the 14th Amendment. May we assume Congress knew the Law of the Land? And I hadn’t heard this since highschool, but we had adopted the common law which established birthright in 1608. The following ruling confirms birthright and the link through common law.

          United States v Rhodes, 1866
          All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons
          born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v.
          Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.

          (“slaves” not yet persons)

          In other words, the 14th was intended for slaves, only because everyone else had birthright since our first colony (we were British then)

          1. So, an amendment to the Constitution cannot render a prior ruling by the SC, as no longer permitted by the Constitution?
            Weren’t the “reconstruction” amendments supposed to change what the SC had previously ruled to be Constitutional? Dred Scott comes to mind.

            1. So, an amendment to the Constitution cannot render a prior ruling by the SC, as no longer permitted by the Constitution?

              As I said, that ruling merely confirms that birthright has existed in America since before our revolution,

              Those, like Trump, who claim birthright can be repealed by legislation alone are full of shit, implying “promises” they cannot keep. Nothing new on that. But Trump is running for emperor anyhow.

      2. Just as we had, before the Constitution, rulings allowing things that the Constitution, later, prohibited.
        Once the 14th placed the decision of who has birthright citizenship into our Supreme Law of the Land, anything else that preceded, is meaningless.
        Unfortunately, the language used was unclear and subject to interpretation, which has led us to where we are, today.
        Even the record of the debate in Congress, surrounding the drafting of the amendment, is interpreted differently, mainly because, at the time, the advantages of citizenship – access to our “safety net” – wasn’t an issue. It didn’t matter as much if “being a citizen” just meant you “belonged”.
        Now it grants all kinds of goodies, not only to the citizen-child but also to the household in which the progeny of law-breakers lives.
        I thought the libertarian position was “open borders but only if the welfare state is eliminated”.

        1. Once the 14th placed the decision of who has birthright citizenship into our Supreme Law of the Land,

          That never happened except for slaves. Everyone else had birthright since before our revolution, and you saw the proof I posted here:

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/08…..nt_5548341

          Unfortunately, the language used was unclear and subject to interpretation

          Only to bullshitters, mostly to support the lie that birthright can be repealed by mere legislation. And bullshit like this:

          Now it grants all kinds of goodies, not only to the citizen-child but also to the household in which the progeny of law-breakers lives.

          You’ve been misinformed. The parents get no benefits if illegal, and they pay the same taxes as everyone else — but are denied the benefits.

          In many other countries, non-citizens even have voting rights. Remember “no taxation without representation?” We fought a war over that. I worked in Canada briefly and voted, as a non-citizen on local tax measures – the only taxes directly approved by voters.

          I thought the libertarian position was “open borders but only if the welfare state is eliminated”.

          Only to outliers like the Rothbardians.(which includes Paulistas). Not Reason, Cato and the Party.

    3. I suggest actually reading the post.

      1. Matt, the post says birthright was “established” by the 14th Amendment. That’s incorrect, and not a nit-pick since anti-constitutionalists you mention (Trump and Ron Paul) claim the “intent” of the 14th was to ad ex-slaves, which they equate with honoring the intent of the founders

        The intent was to ADD ex-slaves, because everyone else already had birthright citizenship (except mostly Indians), since before our founding … per through our common law, based on British common law, which established birthright in 1608. This ruling was 2 years BEFORE the 14th. (United States v Rhodes)

        All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality ofits application. The children of ambassadors are in theory born in the allegiance of thepowers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. 2 Kent, Comm. 1; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1; 1 Bl. Comm. 366; Lynch v.Clarke, 1 Sand. Ch. 583.

        To clarify, we need this “nitpick” to undercut the hucksters. I assume the drafters of the 14th knew this ruling, and the common law they lived under.

  11. But I thought immigration wasn’t even an important issue in this election except for Trump’s shitshow, so why aren’t we talking about the debt and taxes and regulation and property rights and stuff??!!!

    Huh, REASON??!!!

    1. Come on Almanian, put up or shut up! Threaten to cancel your subscription!

  12. once every single person in the world lives in the US, the rest of the world will be empty and Libertopia will be realized!

    I call dibs on Argentina.

  13. The other candidates better hope that there are enough GOP primary voters who favor a reasonable approach to immigration policy, because nobody can outdo Trump on meanness and exaggeration. More importantly, they better hope that about 15 guys decide to drop out before too many primaries go by.

  14. the issue of forcibly expelling Americans from their native country?regardless of how appalling?is a live one, demanding clarification

    That would be like an ex post facto law.

  15. What amazes me is people think ending automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants will somehow not lead to birthright being denied to other classes of people’s children at later times.

    Automatic birthright is a solid line that’s easy to understand: you’re born here = you’re a citizen. Once you destroy that definition with a limitation aimed at a specific (and powerless) class, it becomes easier to limit it again and again.

    1. 190 countries don’t grant birthright citizenship. The US and Canada are the only first world countries that do.

      1. And we are vastly freer than most other countries.

      2. So instead of “Make America Great Again”, it’s “Make America Like the Rest of the World”?

      3. That number is not accurate. Something like 33 countries (almost all in the Americas) do, the rest (160 or so?) don’t.

        1. He did say “first world” countries, though you can argue nations other than the U.S. and Canada in the Americas should be considered first world.

    2. How did you prove your citizenship most recently? Birth certificate?
      Destroy birthright and you destroy the birth certificate as proof of citizenship.
      On the wackier proposals, you’d also have to prove your parents were native born.
      We’re watching Presidential candidates destroy the GOP, and Goldwater thought the “Moral Majority” was the biggest threat of his party.

      1. How did you prove your citizenship most recently?

        Passport. I haven’t used my birth certificate in almost 30 years.

        1. But you received your original passport with your birth certificate. Also, a lot of people don’t have passports; birth certificates are used to prove citizenship.

        2. Passport. I haven’t used my birth certificate in almost 30 years.

          Okay, delete “most recently.” It would make a birth certificate useless to get a passport..And we’re back to, would you need to prove your parent’s citizenship?

      2. So going forwards, new birth certificates will state whether the person on the certificate is a citizen or not.

        Children of diplomats born here do not get citizenship. Do they get birth certificates? If so, I would think there’s something on the certificate to state that they are not citizens.

      3. Gee… I’m gonna MISS those tax-and-bomb prohibitionists.

    3. There is nothing called “Birth Right Citizenship”, it does not exist. Read up.

      What’s amusing though, is the way the advocates for illegal immigration suddenly become sticklers for the rule-of-law when someone calls bullshit on their schemes.

      1. Do you have something to say other than deferring to undefined sources of information and engaging in “tu quoque” arguments?

      2. There is nothing called “Birth Right Citizenship”, it does not exist.

        Only since 1608. That’s when it entered British common law, which we adopted entirely. So birthright citizenship has existed in what is now the United States since our very first settlement.

        Read up

        Have you read our Constitution? 14th Amendment.

    4. What amazes me is people think ending automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants will somehow not lead to birthright being denied to other classes of people’s children at later times.

      “But I was told #BlackLivesMatter!”

      “Did anyone tell you #BlackCitizenshipMatters?”

      “…”

  16. Didn’t Obama change the way he counted deportations? Something about a lot of catch and release stuff at the border.

  17. But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

    Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

    On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up ? primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/…..story.html

    1. The number of deportations is still extremely high. The fact that people at or near the border make up more deportations does not change that they are deportations.

      1. No, but reclassifying turnbacks at the border means you can’t compare the number of deportations under the old definition with the number under the new definition.

    2. Less likely? Has revealed faith become an input in statistics? Anyone seen this probability calculation? Wanna bet?

  18. I hereby call bullshit on the Obama deportation claims. Please update the original post. Ktxhbai

  19. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  20. Yeah, yeah, politics, blah, blah, whatever. Over at gog.com one can purchase the SSI Gold Box AD&D games for $9.99!!!!!

    I’m talking Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Gateway to the Savage Frontier…

    While I’m at it, I might as well plug one of the best Internet Blogs on the Internet: the crpg addict. Figure out the web address yourself…I’m on my phone and don’t have the patience to type it out.

    gog.com

    The crag addict

    You heard it here first. Well, maybe not first, but first today, I bet. Say, are you still reading this? Why? You should already be looking at those two sites. So, get to it!!

    1. “crpg addict” Aaaargh!

  21. “President Barack Obama has been a much bigger deporter-in-chief than George W. Bush.”

    No, he has not. Obama counts as deported people who have been released back into American society pending a future judicial hearing. Apples and oranges.

    1. He’s also started fewer wars. The activities in Libya was just a Kinetic Military Action. And we are OUT OF IRAQ!!!

  22. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

  23. Bad response. Cruz should have said he would not deport U.S. Citizens and gone from there.

    1. That’s because he wasn’t coached on what to say. None of these guys but one will say what they want to, or what they believe. They have to run everything through their handlers. As far as I’m concerned, these bozos can’t think on their own.

  24. “birthright citizenship established by the plain text of the 14th amendment. ”

    No, it doesn’t.

    I do not see how it is practical to strip citizenship from people already born here and granted citizenship. I do see the court ruling that going forward, no new anchor babies can claim citizenship.

    Yes, I would deport the parents. They would have to choose what to do with their children.

    1. The the 14th amendment does’t apply across the board or it has to be amended. There is no provision for a grandfather clause.

      1. There is already a provisional clause, “subject to the jurisdiction of the US”. We have to decide what that means. During the original debate, the author of the clause said it would exclude diplomats and aliens. According to common law it would also exclude occupying foreign soldiers.

        The SC’s Wong case in 1895 ruled a a child of legal permanent residents born in the US was a citizen. It did not address the children of those who did not get permission to enter the country.

        1. The SC’s Wong case in 1895 ruled a a child of legal permanent residents born in the US was a citizen. It did not address the children of those who did not get permission to enter the country.

          United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) His citizenship was based on American birthright since, as you say, neither parent was a citizen. The SOLE reason for the case was that Chinese immigrants were denied naturalization at the time. His parents were denied citizenship but not him, solely on birthright.

          According to common law

          Which established birthright citizenship in 1608 (we adopted British common law entirely) If you know the common law, then you know there was no exclusion for “illegals.” Plus the clear text of the 14th amendment.

    2. “birthright citizenship established by the plain text of the 14th amendment. “

      No, it doesn’t.

      Only for ex-slaves, who were excluded from the birthright citizenship which traces to 1608 (in the common law which we adopted). Slaves were property not persons.

      I do see the court ruling that going forward, no new anchor babies can claim citizenship.

  25. “Anyway, the question?which Cruz, to his discredit, refused to answer?is an important one for those many 2016 GOP candidates (Trump, Cruz, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, etc.) who have come out against the birthright citizenship established by the plain text of the 14th amendment.”

    This is the primary thing people like trump for. He will not refuse to answer, we may not like his answer and that’s ok because now we know what he is thinking and can judge him accordingly. We to only know what he is thinking on doing, we believe he will, at least make the attempt, to do what he says. People are tired of the politico filters these politician speak through.

    “We get that you wish to change the existing rules somehow (Trump and Ron Paul, to name two people, think you can do so without a constitutional amendment)…”

    GASP!!!! Rand Paul and trump agree? Ok, that’s it for Paul, we will no longer support him because he believes the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to anchor babies.

    1. Warning, GOP intruder alert! Intruder alert!

  26. Minor children, who are US citizens, are deported every day to “keep families together”.
    Mark Steyn, filling in for Rush on Monday, noted this very event that resulted from an ex-pat Brit being killed at the WTC on 9/11. His Brit widow, and their two American Born children, were told they must depart since the Visa they were covered by was issued to the now-dead husband/father, it expired upon his death, and they were now in the country without papers.

    1. How unsurprising!

      We already do what they claim can’t be done.

    2. Children born to illegals are not citizens and have no Constitutional rights. “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” clearly excluded everyone without an allegiance to the State. Illegals by their very nature could not possibly profess an allegiance to the State, they violated the law by entering illegally. If you continue to reward scofflaws, why have laws? There is a remedy however. If you don’t like the law there are Constitutional remedies for changing the law. To date it has been done 27 times. Try reading the amendment and all the arguments held in Congress over it’s ratification.

      1. “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” clearly excluded everyone without an allegiance to the State.

        False. Two reasons.
        In the common law, allegiance and birthright are the same.
        The phrase means the same exclusions of the common law — foreign armies and diplomats. In the US, slaves had been excluded from any citizenship at all, as property not people.

        Illegals by their very nature could not possibly profess an allegiance to the State,

        Anyone on earth, by their very nature, could profess allegiance to anything or anyone, including the North Pole andBugs Bunny.

        If you don’t like the law there are Constitutional remedies for changing the law. To date it has been done 27 times.

        It’s not a law, it’s the Constitution. LAWS have been changed, I’ll guess, several hundred thousand times.

        Try reading the amendment and all the arguments held in Congress over it’s ratification.

        Read it again. Also read United States v Rhodes, 2 years before the 14th, which confirmed both birthright and its origins in the common law (since 1608)

  27. Try reading the 14th amendment and the debates held in Congress over ratification before formulating an opinion. Has all logic and reason been lost? The last thing we need is more mass hysteria from a bunch of over opinionated reactionaries. Grow up and try to regain some sense of logic and reason. The 14th amendment was written to ensure property rights were protected for the emancipated slaves without reparations.

    This was 150 years ago and times and cultures have changed considerably. Shallow, fickle, impetuous types tend to internalize things they clearly do not properly understand. Slave trade was common during the pre-industrialization period. For thousands of years in various forms slavery has existed; from indentured servitude, serfdom and debt slavery. The industrial revolution is what changed the landscape of the world. Slavery was not eradicated, it just changed form.

    The real tragedy as I see it is how the mainstream media makes a circus and a mockery of the Constitutional process of deliberation over such issues. SCOTUS has clearly been bought and exists beyond it’s Constitutional limits with regard to interpretation. We the people have the final say in matters, because the jury box supersedes the Court. They profit from our ignorance.

    1. Try reading the 14th amendment and the debates held in Congress over ratification

      I already did. When will you?

      Has all logic and reason been lost?

      Your next cited statement says it all.

      The 14th amendment was written to ensure property rights were protected for the emancipated slaves without reparations.

      Forget the 14th Amendment; read a US History book. Dred Scott. African Americans were not citizens. So they got a hell of a lot more than property rights.

      The last thing we need is more mass hysteria from a bunch of over opinionated reactionaries. Grow up and try to regain some sense of logic and reason.

      Shallow, fickle, impetuous types tend to internalize things they clearly do not properly understand

      the jury box supersedes the ((Supreme)) Court.

  28. OUR representatives-elected-by-secret-ballot? Profit from OUR ignorance? Ya think?

  29. the administration largely ended immigration roundups at workplaces and shifted investigators into targeting business owners who illegally hired foreign workers.

  30. It’s not just the 14th Amendment Cruz is flouting. The citizenship of native-born children goes back to Common Law and influenced the founding fathers.

    An excellent question from Kelly. Yes, the guy who’s such an expert on citizenship he “didn’t know” that he himself was Canadian would indeed deport American citizens.

    What a travesty.

    1. Good for you. And it entered the common law in 1608. A mere 300 years ago. 🙂

  31. ysl crossbody bag Two years ago immigration took a back seat to ObamaCare, the deficit/debt and NSA spying. Suddenly, there are stories of immigrant murderers and rapists, the same thing that the media previously reported, if at all, as just plain murders and rapes. It seemed that there were dozens of articles about how the media was suppressing the races of the killers and rapists. Suddenly, race matters?

    http://bookmarksitelist.com/story/896/
    http://bookmarkpest.win/story……t-on-chain

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.