[albie]

Levin is brilliant. He’s also radio talk show host and they have to explain things with minimal verbiage. Long winded, dull hosts don’t last long in radio.

[Wolfie]

The “anchor baby” doctrine will outlive everybody on this board, and their great grandchildren.

[Buckeye McFrog]

After seeing the way that they tortured language in the two Obamacare cases, do we REALLY expect that SCOTUS is ever going to concur with Levin?

[Jim Noble]

Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that illegal aliens are American citizens

Is there the slightest doubt how they will rule?

[Old Sarge]

In other words, Congress – not the courts, ICE, the president – has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.

We are so screwed.

[Objective Scrutator]

Actually, it may turn out to be a bad thing that only Congress can establish a rule of naturalization. Even if Trump/Cruz win the presidency, they would still have to contend with all the amnesty lovers in Congress; meanwhile, if a liberal wins the WH, they will simply grant unconditional amnesty via executive order, and the country’s worthless academics and enforcers would support that action.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Article I, Section 8 clause of the Constitution says “the Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” In other words, Congress – not the courts, ICE, the president – has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.

While that's important, one can't lose sight of another Constitutional tenet which does necessitate the President's involvement - Article 1, Section 7, Paragraph 2

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Since one Congress cannot dictate the acts of a subsequent Congress, you can bet the next democrat Congress will naturalize all illegals with a stroke of the pen. Voting rights will be instantly extended and the population will be upturned. This is a argument we might not appreciate winning.

[InterceptPoint]

Recommended reading for those really interested in this subject:

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

For those REALLY INTERESTED I recommend the discussion in that article of the 1889 Supreme Court case: Wong Kim Ark that is used by the Libs to justify the current Born in the USA = Citizen of the USA ruling.

The applicability or non-applicability of this case to our current situation hinges on the issue of legal versus illegal immigration. The article argues that the intent of the Wong Kim ARk ruling was to insure that citizenship would be awarded to the children of legal immigrants. It was never intended to apply to the children of people who sneak over our border.

[House Atreides]

I saw Carly Fiorina being interviewed on this subject yesterday. She completely eviscerated any possible perception of herself as a true conservative by her answers. She is a conservative poseur, nothing more. She had me fooled for a short period and I was erroneously thinking of her as possibly being a good running mate for Ted Cruz.

[Skooz]

BFL

[Sans-Culotte]

Moreover, the Supreme Court has never not yet ruled that illegal aliens are American citizens.

[chatham]

Dear Mr, OReilly take a moment to read the words and speak to Mark Levin and then stop Bullying all the poor guests who have to put up with Your Bull Poopy.

Remember: Empty Barrels make the most Noise.

[TomGuy]

A bunch of the Pubbie wannabes are jumping on the anti-anchor-baby train.

That raises the question: Who do you trust to actually stop it?

Jebster-for-open-borders?
Marco-for-amnesty?
Wallace-still-finding-his-footing-on-illegal-immigration?

etc.

==

The Donald is still setting the agenda and forcing the other wannabes to Twix themselves — pick a side.

[nathanbedford]

Even though I deplore birthright citizenship and find it when coupled with chain migration to be a real threat to the viability of the Republic I nevertheless believe that we ought not to deceive ourselves respecting the state of the law of birthright citizenship as defined by the fourteenth amendment and the likelihood of changing that law without a constitutional amendment. I am fully aware of the arguments adduced by Mark Levine and others and find them to be unpersuasive for the reasons expressed here

[V K Lee]

TEXAS has skin in the game already. Anchor baby dropped in state, State refuses to issue birth certificate to Mexican who dropped the infant. She sues —the game is on. This done just earlier this month and seen in the news just recently. Trump is in this to win this and has begun to get industrial brooms ready to sweep. Of course, this is just a po from a lowly smelly unintelligent redneck

[conservative98]

And two hours before that, O’Reilly was on Fox shouting again that the 14th amendment makes “ANYONE, ANYONE” who is born here a citizen.....

[PCPOET7]

I always thought that the 14th amendment was so southern states could not denie citizenship to ex slaves and there children.

[moehoward]

Bttt