The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

[SpacemanSpiff]

Remind me not to have Mr. Trump teach a Civics class. Or maybe he needs to sit with some (legal) immigrants taking classes for citizenship.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/donald-t ... 52761.html

Donald Trump is defending his controversial immigration plan, telling Fox News’ Bill O'Reilly that the 14th Amendment — which guarantees citizenship to all people “born or naturalized in the United States,” including children whose parents came to the country illegally — is unconstitutional. “It’s not going to hold up in court,” Trump said on The Factor Tuesday.

Why does this remind me of folks who insist that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional (in spite of the 16th Amendment)? Is this a case of "don't confuse me with facts," or is this just Trump's ego, where he can never be wrong?

[andrewjackson]

I'm trying to find where Trump said that that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. He said automatic citizenship "is not going to hold up in court.". Courts rule on things other than constitutionality. I see this headline but I don't see a quote.

I have a feeling that someone talked to Trump about the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the amendment. That was used for a long time to deny citizenship to Indians born within the U.S. since they legally were under the jurisdiction of their tribes. In 1923 the U.S. government offered citizenship to all tribal members and that avoided the issue.

If a court ruled that the children of illegal aliens weren't " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so they aren't citizens that wouldn't make the 14th Amendment unconstitutional. It would just mean that the 14th Amendment didn't apply.

[Bob Juch]

I'm trying to find where Trump said that that the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. He said automatic citizenship "is not going to hold up in court.". Courts rule on things other than constitutionality. I see this headline but I don't see a quote.

I have a feeling that someone talked to Trump about the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the amendment. That was used for a long time to deny citizenship to Indians born within the U.S. since they legally were under the jurisdiction of their tribes. In 1923 the U.S. government offered citizenship to all tribal members and that avoided the issue.

If a court ruled that the children of illegal aliens weren't " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so they aren't citizens that wouldn't make the 14th Amendment unconstitutional. It would just mean that the 14th Amendment didn't apply.

Then they'd not be subject to arrest in the U.S.

[SpacemanSpiff]

This might be a better article than the Yahoo one with the sensationalized headline.

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-ore ... ght-2015-8

Among other things, Trump called for ending birthright citizenship, or the right of anyone born in the US to American citizenship.

As O'Reilly pointed out, however, the Constitution's 14th Amendment enshrines birthright citizenship into US law.

"That's not going to happen because the 14th Amendment says if you're born here, you're an American," O'Reilly said. "And you can't kick Americans out. The courts would block you at every turn. You must know all that."

Trump insisted that the Constitution did not grant citizenship to "anchor babies," a pejorative term used to describe the children of people who enter the country illegally with the purpose of having a son or daughter who would then be granted US citizenship.

"Bill, I think you're wrong about the 14th Amendment," Trump said. "And frankly, the whole thing with 'anchor babies' and the concept of 'anchor babies' — I don't think you're right about that."

If nothing else, Mr. Trump is going to force any competing candidate to talk about immigration, something that more than a few of them would like to avoid. It'll either force them to alienate the Republican base (now) or the general public (in November 2016).

[BackInTex]

It'll either force them to alienate the Republican base (now) or the general public (in November 2016).

Those groups are mutually exclusive? I did not know that.

[TheConfessor]

It'll either force them to alienate the Republican base (now) or the general public (in November 2016).

Those groups are mutually exclusive? I did not know that.

This might help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram

[SpacemanSpiff]

It'll either force them to alienate the Republican base (now) or the general public (in November 2016).

Those groups are mutually exclusive? I did not know that.

Based upon the results of the past two Presidential elections (and, historically for both sides, throw in 1964 and 1972), I would say yes.