Hi
I wander where com from trump's grammar and gramphader?
are they USA born here or they are com from some where?
are they emigrants to?
some one should ask him,
atlas remind him that he is to some how emigrant!
I thinks he forget.
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:40 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_war_on_anchor_babies_20150831/
Posted on Aug 31, 2015
By Bill Blum
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves to the crowd after
speaking at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies in Nashville,
Tenn., on Saturday. (Mark Humphrey / AP)
If Donald Trump has learned anything during his long and overblown career as
a real estate mogul and reality TV huckster, it's that flamboyance,
belligerence, vulgarity and the allure and promise of supremacy sell.
Truth, fairness and justice-abstract eggheaded concepts all-don't sell, and
have little to do with Trump's concept of success. All that matters is
winning and outperforming the competition. As Trump was recently quoted as
saying in an Aug. 15 op-ed by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: "I
always win. ... It's what I do. I beat people. I win."
No doubt Trump would have added, had he been asked directly, that the people
he beats include babies-or more precisely, "anchor babies," the pejorative
du jour used to describe the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants,
who become citizens at birth under current legal doctrine. Trump wants to
wage war on anchor babies and strip them of their American citizenship. He's
made that war the cornerstone of the anti-immigration platform that has
vaulted him to the top of the Republican presidential polls.
Say what you will about the Donald, but the man isn't stupid. When he
announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination June 16 and declared
that Mexico was "sending" drug smugglers and "rapists" into the U.S., he
knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn't just bemoaning the presence of an
estimated 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in our midst, or simply
tapping into our long and sorry traditions of nativist scapegoating; he was
accusing Mexico of deliberately staging an invasion of the United States.
The invasion thesis operates at the center of Trump's campaign, whose motto
is "Make American Great Again." The thesis is spelled out in greater detail
in the "immigration reform" policy the campaign posted on its website in
mid-August, and it is central to the thinking behind the policy.
"For many years," the policy statement proclaims, "Mexico's leaders have
been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to
export the crime and poverty in their own country. . They have even
published pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States."
To turn back the invasion, Trump's policy calls not only for tripling the
number of immigration agents and conducting mass deportations of the
undocumented, but also building the much-ballyhooed 2,000-mile-long
impenetrable wall along our southern border, which Trump has vowed Mexico
will be forced to fund should he attain our nation's highest office.
But of all the proposals tendered by the Trump campaign, none is more
far-reaching politically or dependent, in a strict legal sense, on the
invasion argument than the call for ending "birthright citizenship" for
so-called anchor babies. Birthright citizenship, the policy contends,
"remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration."
But can it be done? Wouldn't the repeal of birthright citizenship require a
constitutional amendment, or more specifically, an amendment to the 14th
Amendment of 1868? Amending the Constitution is a cumbersome, time-consuming
and highly uncertain process. It's been done only 27 times before.
Although the Trump campaign's immigration policy is silent on the amendment
issue, the candidate himself, as might be expected, has not been. In an Aug.
19 town meeting in Derry, N.H., Trump told a crowd of ardent supporters that
"many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered" by the
14th Amendment. "We're going to have to find out" by means of a court
challenge, he said.
Like many other students of constitutional law, I dismissed Trump's remarks
as little more than the usual hot air and red meat that Republican pols and
their echo chamber at Fox News regularly spoon-feed their base. But as the
PolitiFact project of the Tampa Bay Times subsequently reported, a small yet
influential collection of academics, such as Yale Law School professor Peter
Schuck, actually supports Trump's position. It has also been endorsed by at
least one highly respected federal judge-Richard Posner of the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both the legal proponents of birthright citizenship and their opponents
begin their interpretations with the text of the 14th Amendment's
citizenship clause, which reads: "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."
The amendment was adopted to overturn the Supreme Court's infamous Dred
Scott decision of 1857, which invalidated the Missouri Compromise and held
that African-Americans, whether enslaved or freed, could never be U.S.
citizens. Both sides in the current debate agree that the amendment's
central purpose was to confer citizenship upon newly emancipated slaves.
However, when it comes to other groups of people, the two sides disagree
sharply over the meaning and purpose of the clause that limits citizenship
to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Those who align with
Trump maintain that the clause pertains only to people who declare
unswerving allegiance to America and to no other sovereign. It is for this
reason, they argue, that children of foreign diplomats born in this country
do not receive citizenship at birth.
Nor would the children of foreign occupying forces born here receive
automatic citizenship, birthright opponents insist. Although Mexico has not,
of course, declared war on America, the Trump campaign regards today's
illegal Mexican immigrants as a de facto invading force. As one
anti-immigrant organization-the Colorado Alliance for Immigration
Reform-explains the current nativist position: "The correct interpretation
of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the
jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."
Birthright opponents further buttress their interpretation with invocations
of the "original intent" of the framers of the 14th Amendment,
cherry-picking various anti-immigrant sentiments expressed during the
Senate's 1866 debates over the measure. They also cite the Supreme Court's
1884 decision in Elk v. Wilkins, which declared that Native Americans were
not citizens under the 14th Amendment, even though they were born within the
geographic limits of the U.S., because they owed their allegiance to tribal
nations that had their own reservations.
Birthright opponents emphasize that the Elk ruling was effectively
overturned with passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. No
constitutional amendment was required. Thus, they conclude, if Congress had
the power to pass legislation and alter the citizenship status of America's
indigenous population without a constitutional amendment, Congress can also
pass new laws to take away the citizenship of anchor babies.
Fortunately, the great weight of legal scholarship is to the contrary. As
University of Baltimore Law professor Garrett Epps, the Congressional
Research Service and others have shown, the ratification debates taken as a
whole indicate that the 14th Amendment was designed to extend citizenship to
all people born in the U.S. regardless of the race, ethnicity or alienage of
their parents.
Any doubts in this regard were laid to rest by another landmark Supreme
Court decision handed down in 1898-United States v. Wong Kim Ark-in which
the high tribunal held that the 14th Amendment had to be read according to
English common law and the principles of jus soli (Latin for "law of the
soil"). Under those principles, people born within the territorial dominion
of a nation were recognized as citizens at birth. Construing the 14th
Amendment's citizenship clause, the court held that the phrase "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof" referred to anyone who is required to obey U.S.
law rather than those formally swearing their allegiance.
Although the Supreme Court has had few occasions to revisit its Wong Kim Ark
opinion, it has since expressed its approval of birthright citizenship
twice: in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe concerning the right of undocumented
children to attend public schools, and again in 1985 in the case of INS v.
Rios-Pineda, a deportation proceeding.
In the face of the overwhelming legal authority against them, you might
expect Trump and his minions to let anchor babies off the hook and declare a
truce in the war against them. Don't count on it.
If you had asked legal scholars back in 2007 if they thought the National
Rifle Association and its allies had a snowball's chance of persuading the
Supreme Court that the Eighth Amendment protected an individual right to
bear arms, most would have smiled and referred you to the vast body of
literature and prior case law that advised that the Eighth Amendment
protected gun ownership only in connection with service in a state militia.
Then, along came Justice Antonin Scalia. With Scalia writing for a 5-4
majority, the court purported to divine the original intent of the framers
of the Bill of Rights and succeeded in turning the Second Amendment on its
head in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing an individual
constitutional right to bear arms.
I'm not prepared to say that the same kind of turnabout could happen with
the 14th Amendment. But neither am I prepared to say it won't or it can't.
So stay tuned. Donald Trump's war on anchor babies is no laughing matter.
It's serious, and it's just getting started.
http://www.truthdig.com/ http://www.truthdig.com/
Trump's War on 'Anchor Babies'
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/trumps_war_on_anchor_babies_20150831/
Posted on Aug 31, 2015
By Bill Blum
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves to the crowd after
speaking at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies in Nashville,
Tenn., on Saturday. (Mark Humphrey / AP)
If Donald Trump has learned anything during his long and overblown career as
a real estate mogul and reality TV huckster, it's that flamboyance,
belligerence, vulgarity and the allure and promise of supremacy sell.
Truth, fairness and justice-abstract eggheaded concepts all-don't sell, and
have little to do with Trump's concept of success. All that matters is
winning and outperforming the competition. As Trump was recently quoted as
saying in an Aug. 15 op-ed by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd: "I
always win. ... It's what I do. I beat people. I win."
No doubt Trump would have added, had he been asked directly, that the people
he beats include babies-or more precisely, "anchor babies," the pejorative
du jour used to describe the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants,
who become citizens at birth under current legal doctrine. Trump wants to
wage war on anchor babies and strip them of their American citizenship. He's
made that war the cornerstone of the anti-immigration platform that has
vaulted him to the top of the Republican presidential polls.
Say what you will about the Donald, but the man isn't stupid. When he
announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination June 16 and declared
that Mexico was "sending" drug smugglers and "rapists" into the U.S., he
knew exactly what he was doing. He wasn't just bemoaning the presence of an
estimated 11.3 million undocumented immigrants in our midst, or simply
tapping into our long and sorry traditions of nativist scapegoating; he was
accusing Mexico of deliberately staging an invasion of the United States.
The invasion thesis operates at the center of Trump's campaign, whose motto
is "Make American Great Again." The thesis is spelled out in greater detail
in the "immigration reform" policy the campaign posted on its website in
mid-August, and it is central to the thinking behind the policy.
"For many years," the policy statement proclaims, "Mexico's leaders have
been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to
export the crime and poverty in their own country. . They have even
published pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States."
To turn back the invasion, Trump's policy calls not only for tripling the
number of immigration agents and conducting mass deportations of the
undocumented, but also building the much-ballyhooed 2,000-mile-long
impenetrable wall along our southern border, which Trump has vowed Mexico
will be forced to fund should he attain our nation's highest office.
But of all the proposals tendered by the Trump campaign, none is more
far-reaching politically or dependent, in a strict legal sense, on the
invasion argument than the call for ending "birthright citizenship" for
so-called anchor babies. Birthright citizenship, the policy contends,
"remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration."
But can it be done? Wouldn't the repeal of birthright citizenship require a
constitutional amendment, or more specifically, an amendment to the 14th
Amendment of 1868? Amending the Constitution is a cumbersome, time-consuming
and highly uncertain process. It's been done only 27 times before.
Although the Trump campaign's immigration policy is silent on the amendment
issue, the candidate himself, as might be expected, has not been. In an Aug.
19 town meeting in Derry, N.H., Trump told a crowd of ardent supporters that
"many of the great scholars say that anchor babies are not covered" by the
14th Amendment. "We're going to have to find out" by means of a court
challenge, he said.
Like many other students of constitutional law, I dismissed Trump's remarks
as little more than the usual hot air and red meat that Republican pols and
their echo chamber at Fox News regularly spoon-feed their base. But as the
PolitiFact project of the Tampa Bay Times subsequently reported, a small yet
influential collection of academics, such as Yale Law School professor Peter
Schuck, actually supports Trump's position. It has also been endorsed by at
least one highly respected federal judge-Richard Posner of the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Both the legal proponents of birthright citizenship and their opponents
begin their interpretations with the text of the 14th Amendment's
citizenship clause, which reads: "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."
The amendment was adopted to overturn the Supreme Court's infamous Dred
Scott decision of 1857, which invalidated the Missouri Compromise and held
that African-Americans, whether enslaved or freed, could never be U.S.
citizens. Both sides in the current debate agree that the amendment's
central purpose was to confer citizenship upon newly emancipated slaves.
However, when it comes to other groups of people, the two sides disagree
sharply over the meaning and purpose of the clause that limits citizenship
to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Those who align with
Trump maintain that the clause pertains only to people who declare
unswerving allegiance to America and to no other sovereign. It is for this
reason, they argue, that children of foreign diplomats born in this country
do not receive citizenship at birth.
Nor would the children of foreign occupying forces born here receive
automatic citizenship, birthright opponents insist. Although Mexico has not,
of course, declared war on America, the Trump campaign regards today's
illegal Mexican immigrants as a de facto invading force. As one
anti-immigrant organization-the Colorado Alliance for Immigration
Reform-explains the current nativist position: "The correct interpretation
of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the
jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."
Birthright opponents further buttress their interpretation with invocations
of the "original intent" of the framers of the 14th Amendment,
cherry-picking various anti-immigrant sentiments expressed during the
Senate's 1866 debates over the measure. They also cite the Supreme Court's
1884 decision in Elk v. Wilkins, which declared that Native Americans were
not citizens under the 14th Amendment, even though they were born within the
geographic limits of the U.S., because they owed their allegiance to tribal
nations that had their own reservations.
Birthright opponents emphasize that the Elk ruling was effectively
overturned with passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. No
constitutional amendment was required. Thus, they conclude, if Congress had
the power to pass legislation and alter the citizenship status of America's
indigenous population without a constitutional amendment, Congress can also
pass new laws to take away the citizenship of anchor babies.
Fortunately, the great weight of legal scholarship is to the contrary. As
University of Baltimore Law professor Garrett Epps, the Congressional
Research Service and others have shown, the ratification debates taken as a
whole indicate that the 14th Amendment was designed to extend citizenship to
all people born in the U.S. regardless of the race, ethnicity or alienage of
their parents.
Any doubts in this regard were laid to rest by another landmark Supreme
Court decision handed down in 1898-United States v. Wong Kim Ark-in which
the high tribunal held that the 14th Amendment had to be read according to
English common law and the principles of jus soli (Latin for "law of the
soil"). Under those principles, people born within the territorial dominion
of a nation were recognized as citizens at birth. Construing the 14th
Amendment's citizenship clause, the court held that the phrase "subject to
the jurisdiction thereof" referred to anyone who is required to obey U.S.
law rather than those formally swearing their allegiance.
Although the Supreme Court has had few occasions to revisit its Wong Kim Ark
opinion, it has since expressed its approval of birthright citizenship
twice: in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe concerning the right of undocumented
children to attend public schools, and again in 1985 in the case of INS v.
Rios-Pineda, a deportation proceeding.
In the face of the overwhelming legal authority against them, you might
expect Trump and his minions to let anchor babies off the hook and declare a
truce in the war against them. Don't count on it.
If you had asked legal scholars back in 2007 if they thought the National
Rifle Association and its allies had a snowball's chance of persuading the
Supreme Court that the Eighth Amendment protected an individual right to
bear arms, most would have smiled and referred you to the vast body of
literature and prior case law that advised that the Eighth Amendment
protected gun ownership only in connection with service in a state militia.
Then, along came Justice Antonin Scalia. With Scalia writing for a 5-4
majority, the court purported to divine the original intent of the framers
of the Bill of Rights and succeeded in turning the Second Amendment on its
head in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing an individual
constitutional right to bear arms.
I'm not prepared to say that the same kind of turnabout could happen with
the 14th Amendment. But neither am I prepared to say it won't or it can't.
So stay tuned. Donald Trump's war on anchor babies is no laughing matter.
It's serious, and it's just getting started.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_commenting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_commenting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_russell_brand_tires_of_commenting
_cyclical_news_puts_trews_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/iceland_could_only_take_in_50_sy
rian_refugees_10000_icelanders_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/iceland_could_only_take_in_50_sy
rian_refugees_10000_icelanders_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/iceland_could_only_take_in_50_sy
rian_refugees_10000_icelanders_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/enter_the_bear_russia_planning_air_strik
es_islamic_state_syria_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/enter_the_bear_russia_planning_air_strik
es_islamic_state_syria_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/enter_the_bear_russia_planning_air_strik
es_islamic_state_syria_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_age_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_age_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/are_we_really_moving_towards_an_age_of_t
echnological_abundance_20150901/ http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/
http://www.truthdig.com/about/http://www.truthdig.com/contact/http://www.tru
thdig.com/user_agreement/http://www.truthdig.com/privacy_policy/http://www.t
ruthdig.com/about/comment_policy/
C 2015 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
http://www.hopstudios.com/
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://support.truthdig.com/signup_page/subscribe
http://www.facebook.com/truthdighttp://twitter.com/intent/follow?source=foll
owbutton&variant=1.0&screen_name=truthdighttps://plus.google.com/+truthdight
tp://www.linkedin.com/company/truthdighttp://truthdig.tumblr.com/http://www.
truthdig.com/connect
