Posted on 09/08/2023 4:55:47 PM PDT by libh8er
ORANGE CITY, IA -- Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says that as president, he would deport American-born children of undocumented immigrants.
"The family unit will be deported," said Ramaswamy when asked by NBC News if the deportations would include American-born children, after a packed town hall here Friday.
These children, however, are U.S. citizens, regardless of their parents' immigration status. The 14th Amendment states that “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.”
When asked again if these children would be deported along with their families, Ramaswamy doubled down.
"That is correct," he said.
Ramaswamy, like some other conservatives, believes the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship.
"Under the legal theory that the child of an illegal immigrant is not someone who enjoys birthright citizenship, then it would be perfectly legally permissible to remove the entire family unit," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
No he won’t, it would be struck down as unconstitutional in 5 minutes.
Boob bait from the Soros candidate.
> That is a direct violation of the Constitution and will take about 5 minutes for a judge to overturn. According to some folks and some case law that is ‘true’ and is the likely initial result. BUT based on the history of creating the 14th, the amendment on which they rest their claim, an honest, textual and originalist based appeal probably should go with Vivek here. We’ve all just been brainwashed on the subject for 140 years. At most, simple legislation should be able to end it. Not so sure about mere exec order.
Illegal aliens.
Not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not citizens.
The man is 100 percent correct.
Incorrect.
As always.
Nope.
About 60.
True. It would be a policy change that the GOP-e will cry about and not do but it is possible.
That is a direct violation of the Constitution and will take about 5 minutes for a judge to overturn.
No.
Besides, he's a son of two immigrants from India not yet citizens and was born in the US. Does he have to go also?
His parents are citizens. And were here legally so no.
Gosh you sound like Joy-less Behr whining about Melania.
There is a major difference between people coming here legally with the intention of nationalizing and people who slither in here to drop their spawn in order to steal us blind.
From the article:
“Ramaswamy, like some other conservatives, believes the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship.
“Under the legal theory that the child of an illegal immigrant is not someone who enjoys birthright citizenship, then it would be perfectly legally permissible to remove the entire family unit,” he said.”
14th amendment:
“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.”
It does not matter what citizenship his parents had, if he was born on US reservation he is a naturalized citizen. He mentioned in his debate info that his parents arrived from India as immigrants. At the time he was born, they were still listed as immigrants and not citizens of the US. But that makes no difference, he was born on US soul in Ohio. He is a citizen by birth according to the 14th amendment and does not require naturalization.
“His parents are citizens. And were here legally so no.”
I did not question their legality at being here and everything I can find says they were. But stepping on US soil after being born outside US controlled areas doesn’t automatically make you a citizen. They had to go through the naturalization process getting a green card and testing. But their son was a citizen at birth.
There is a major difference between people coming here legally with the intention of nationalizing and people who slither in here to drop their spawn in order to steal us blind.
You are correct morally. However the term anchor baby falls out of the sky and haunts the states that are forced o accept them and their families to care for the new US citizen baby no matter what their intent was. I don’t make the rules, someone else made that one.
One of my troops in the military was born in Germany to an American citizen military member and a German citizen in a hospital outside of the military reservation on German soil. So even though my troop was in the military, and had lived as a citizen of the US for around 19 years, when Uncle Sugar found out about the arrangement that had happened and was undetected, he had to get a green card and naturalize.
If not born on American property and not by a citizen parent that had lived at the time inside the US within the last two years at the time of the birth, then the child is not a citizen.
And his wishing to take US born children and deport them with their families is a violation of the 14th amendment. It’ll never make it through court. And the scenario he is describing matches his birth and situation. So, if he is determined to remove children born on US soil just because their parents weren’t, then it mirrors his situation perfectly and he since he wants to deport them all, he has to go by his rules. Read the article completely.
wy69
The 14th amendment is very clear in what I’ve read. It states that anyone born on American soil is a naturalized citizen of the US.
“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.”
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-
amendment#:~:text=All%20persons%20born%20or%20naturalized%20in%20the%20United%20States%2C%20and,the%20State%20wherein%20they%20reside.
As for changing an amendment with an EO, that can’t be done either. It takes a relatively long, drawn out process with a lot of hoops to jump through:
The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
So you can’t just change an amendment. A new amendment must be written and go through the above process to be created and used. An example is the amendments for prohibition, the 18th and 21st, one to get rid of demon alcohol and the other to bring it back.
wy69
wy69
US reservation?
But that makes no difference, he was born on US soul in Ohio.
US soul?
And his wishing to take US born children and deport them with their families is a violation of the 14th amendment.
Nope.
And the scenario he is describing matches his birth and situation.
And nope.
I did read the article. You, well, let's just say that you are reading things that are not there. At all.
You avoid "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part like a liberal avoiding the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment.
Illegals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
It is a plain and simple fact that they have been tapdancing around since Chester Alan Arthur, who was probably not born until after his father nationalized.
Rumpswab wants to deport American citizens? to WHERE exactly? How about deport their ILLEGAL parents and of course the ILLEGAL parents will take the kids with them, problem solved. OR how about you slam the border shut? This rumbswab is annoying, he will NOT be the nominee thank God and I hope Trump does NOT consider him for any important position.
“llegals are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
And you’re reading into it. If they are born on a US reservation... A reservation is something set aside, like a table at a restaurant or land for Native Americans. An example is a military reservation which is defined as a duly commissioned post, camp, base, or station of a branch of the armed forces of the United States located on territory within this state which has been ceded to the United States and all born within it’s boundaries are citizens of that reservation. So because of that and in this case, US citizens. The states are recognized as reservations and there is jurisdiction within them by laws to include those separate from the other states surrounding them. So these reservations have their own jurisdiction...states’ right. It’s in the Constitution.
wy69
Nonetheless originalists continue to dispute its accuracy. There have been LOTS of threads on FR rehashing this over the years. The dispute is equally as historical as that case and the 14th itself, section 5 of which empowers Congress to pass laws implementing it. Of which a law banning birthright citizenship could be an attempt.
I don’t worship stare decisis, I worship the Constitution as was written and intended to mean. My town, in the never slave territory now known as Iowa, in its official history lists as one of its first residents, one Dread Scott. Taney’s SCOTUS was wrong about him. That was belatedly fixed via the 13th. But other bad decicscions: Plessy and RHoe, were revisited and fixed by SCOTUS. Some claim no new decision is needed here, just new law under §5.
“I worship the Constitution as was written and intended to mean.”
As do I. But intent of meaning is based upon accepted societal needs and will continue to be decisions based upon the survival of the politicians and not always common sense (sorry on that one. Common sense goes out the window when it comes to graft).
Section 5 of the 14th amendment is a check and balance. It is to be used when a state oversteps the accepted writing and makes laws to conflict with the amendment. This is how concessions are created. But once established, they become practice and are expected to stay in place for the cooperation of the whole. And they have been worked around using the existing rules by cheating the intent. The Obama birth situation is an example. Loophole.
wy69
You are reading into it stuff that is not there and overlooking what is.
An example is a military reservation which is defined as a duly commissioned post, camp, base, or station of a branch of the armed forces of the United States located on territory within this state which has been ceded to the United States and all born within it’s boundaries are citizens of that reservation.
No. Don't know who sold you that line but no.
You can not be a "citizen" of a military base. And no matter if you are born on a Indian Reservation you are not a "citizen" of that reservation. You are a citizen of where ever you parents are citizens of.
Which completely turns your argument on it's head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.