Trump and Walker Both Admit they are incapable of being POTUS

[joelbc1]

Over the weekend Donald Trump told America he would send back all illegal immigrants to their native countries. That would include their children who were naturally born US citizens. Yesterday Gov. Walker said he supported the same idea as Trump at the Iowa State Fair.
In doing so, BOTH these candidates have announced that will NOT uphold the Constitution of the United States (in this case the 14th Amendment). This is a bold pronouncement by two men who have taken every liberty to criticize President Obama at every turn.
In order to become POTUS, the candidate-elect must take the "oath of office." Part of that oath states the POTUS will "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. That would include the 14th Amendment in its entirety.
Thank God all the GOP candidates do not hold the Constitution is such little regard as Trump and Walker.

 

[naturalmwa]

Walker's explanation for this position was especially fun. He said it was because he wanted to uphold our laws. Poor kid should have stayed in school.

 

[unIowa]

Hillary told the American public that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video...I guess she disqualified herself there as well. That is less believable than rounding up all illegal immigrant families and sending them back to their home nations.

 

[joelbc1]

Hillary told the American public that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video...I guess she disqualified herself there as well. That is less believable than rounding up all illegal immigrant families and sending them back to their home nations.

How does that fail to uphold protect and defend the Constitution of the US, un?

 

[cigaretteman]

Hillary told the American public that Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video...I guess she disqualified herself there as well. That is less believable than rounding up all illegal immigrant families and sending them back to their home nations.

Actually, it made perfect sense with what was known at the time. Just another trumped up wingnut "scandal."

 

[rocketclone]

Over the weekend Donald Trump told America he would send back all illegal immigrants to their native countries. That would include their children who were naturally born US citizens. Yesterday Gov. Walker said he supported the same idea as Trump at the Iowa State Fair.
In doing so, BOTH these candidates have announced that will NOT uphold the Constitution of the United States (in this case the 14th Amendment). This is a bold pronouncement by two men who have taken every liberty to criticize President Obama at every turn.
In order to become POTUS, the candidate-elect must take the "oath of office." Part of that oath states the POTUS will "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. That would include the 14th Amendment in its entirety.
Thank God all the GOP candidates do not hold the Constitution is such little regard as Trump and Walker.

I am not sure that is exactly what they meant. I think they were implying that if the illegals went back, their family that are citizens are free to go with them. That is the way I took it anyway.

 

[rocketclone]

Actually, it made perfect sense with what was known at the time. Just another trumped up wingnut "scandal."

Keep drinking that kool aid man.............and she had no emails on her server that weren't supposed to be there either huh

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Actually, it made perfect sense with what was known at the time. Just another trumped up wingnut "scandal."

Benghazi is just another trumped up scandal by the repubbers?

 

[unIowa]

Actually, it made perfect sense with what was known at the time. Just another trumped up wingnut "scandal."

No it did not make sense, it was a lame and fully transparent story to buy the WH and State department some time to get their ish together. If you really believed that story you sir truly are special.

 

[gusto79]

No it did not make sense, it was a lame and fully transparent story to buy the WH and State department some time to get their ish together. If you really believed that story you sir truly are special.

What about the protests at other embassies because of the video?

 

[unIowa]

How does that fail to uphold protect and defend the Constitution of the US, un?

Honestly I didn't read the entire OP. I think Trump and Walkers positions of rounding them up and sending them off are not realistic policy and that is what I thought natural was going after. I also think Hillary is an awful candidate and am not sure why 35%ish of the American public can't seem to grasp/see it.

 

[unIowa]

What about the protests at other embassies because of the video?

Did they result in mass violence and a bunch of dead people? They rolled out the video excuse to buy them time. We found out later they knew it was an organized attack yet they still rolled that POS story line out. It was pathetic, if you are ok with politics as usual then I guess Clinton or Bush is your candidate.

 

[Vroom_C14]

Insert picture of Ciggy blowing Hillary here...

 

[gusto79]

Did they result in mass violence and a bunch of dead people? They rolled out the video excuse to buy them time. We found out later they knew it was an organized attack yet they still rolled that POS story line out. It was pathetic, if you are ok with politics as usual then I guess Clinton or Bush is your candidate.

I don't like Clinton and won't vote for her. I don't know if any of the other protests rise to the level of mass violence, but I'm pretty sure some people died at some of the other protests. My main point was that it wasn't like this youtube video was pulled out of thin air.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Keeping families together, a priority of the GOP....unless they are gay, then ew.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

trump has stated many times he won't break up families and he's not talking about the hard working folks who do it the right way, he's talking about criminal illegal aliens, yes, the prez has the ability and even the duty to rid our country of criminals. but you know who has more authority under this country's laws than the prez? the local sheriff

 

[naturalmwa]

Insert picture of Ciggy blowing Hillary here...

I'm really fascinated by this prospect.

 

[theIowaHawk]

trump has stated many times he won't break up families and he's not talking about the hard working folks who do it the right way, he's talking about criminal illegal aliens, yes, the prez has the ability and even the duty to rid our country of criminals. but you know who has more authority under this country's laws than the prez? the local sheriff

So what is it you are wanting the local sheriff to do? Round up illegals, drive outside of his jurisdiction to move then...while kidnapping citizen children?

 

[cigaretteman]

Benghazi is just another trumped up scandal by the repubbers?

Of course. It was a tragic situation that has been exploited by the right for political purposes rather than being impartially investigated to determine how such occurrences could be prevented in the future.

 

[unIowa]

Of course. It was a tragic situation that has been exploited by the right for political purposes rather than being impartially investigated to determine how such occurrences could be prevented in the future.

It is simple really, just shut down YouTube and the problem would have never happened in the first place. Hillary logic.

 

[pablow]

Birthright citizenship needs to be ended - now. Trump and Walker, however, aren't aware that it exists.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

Over the weekend Donald Trump told America he would send back all illegal immigrants to their native countries. That would include their children who were naturally born US citizens. Yesterday Gov. Walker said he supported the same idea as Trump at the Iowa State Fair.
In doing so, BOTH these candidates have announced that will NOT uphold the Constitution of the United States (in this case the 14th Amendment). This is a bold pronouncement by two men who have taken every liberty to criticize President Obama at every turn.
In order to become POTUS, the candidate-elect must take the "oath of office." Part of that oath states the POTUS will "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. That would include the 14th Amendment in its entirety.
Thank God all the GOP candidates do not hold the Constitution is such little regard as Trump and Walker.

Couldn't find the actual quote where Trump said he would send back illegal kids born in the US. He said he would deport the families of these kids and bring them (families) back quickly (the good ones). So, unless he actually said he was going to deport a US citizen, you're incorrect.

 

[bagdropper]

Of course. It was a tragic situation that has been exploited by the right for political purposes rather than being impartially investigated to determine how such occurrences could be prevented in the future.

Which wouldn't have been magnified as much by the utterly idiotic story they passed onto the world as to the cause.

Even someone like you has to admit, the video story they handed out was amateur hour at it's finest. And that is why lapping up the "vast right wing conspiracy" angle you dismiss the fallout after as falls on deaf ears to many (as well as incentivizes them going after her on the entire ordeal), and plays into the line of thought that she really is not someone who many would not want leading our country.

Exploiting? She deserves every single solitary pile of mud slung at her, and has nothing else to blame but herself.

 

[TJ8869]

Over the weekend Donald Trump told America he would send back all illegal immigrants to their native countries. That would include their children who were naturally born US citizens. Yesterday Gov. Walker said he supported the same idea as Trump at the Iowa State Fair.
In doing so, BOTH these candidates have announced that will NOT uphold the Constitution of the United States (in this case the 14th Amendment). This is a bold pronouncement by two men who have taken every liberty to criticize President Obama at every turn.
In order to become POTUS, the candidate-elect must take the "oath of office." Part of that oath states the POTUS will "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States. That would include the 14th Amendment in its entirety.
Thank God all the GOP candidates do not hold the Constitution is such little regard as Trump and Walker.

First, I have no intention of voting for either Trump or Walker. Second, the idea of sending all illegal immigrants back to their country of origin is a bad idea and a logistical impossibility.

Having said that, you're missing a very important point regarding the 14th Amendment. Most prominent Republicans aren't suggesting we should disregard the 14th, rather that we should have the SCOTUS revisit the amendment and clarify exactly what it means. A lot of people, myself included, feel that a child is not necessarily entitled to American citizenship simply for popping out of its mother's birth canal in an American hospital if the mother wasn't here legally in the first place.

 

[naturalmwa]

Couldn't find the actual quote where Trump said he would send back illegal kids born in the US. He said he would deport the families of these kids and bring them (families) back quickly (the good ones). So, unless he actually said he was going to deport a US citizen, you're incorrect.

There is no such thing as an illegal kid born in the US. Being born in the US makes you a legal citizen.

 

[N_fuego]

I'd have to think that it would be difficult for Hillary to follow through with the responsibilities of being POTUS after she looses her security clearance, due to the email issue.

 

[iammrhawkeyes]

There is no such thing as an illegal kid born in the US. Being born in the US makes you a legal citizen.

Poor choice of words. I clarified that in my last sentence. Miss that? Is Trump refusing to uphold the Constitution in the way Joel suggests?

 

[TJ8869]

Of course. It was a tragic situation that has been exploited by the right for political purposes rather than being impartially investigated to determine how such occurrences could be prevented in the future.

Republicans have gone way overboard exploiting this issue. They have squeezed more air out of this political football than Tom Brady's equipment manager.

But please at least acknowledge that Democrats also are guilty of playing politics with the incident. They knew right away Benghazi was much more than just a YouTube video protest. They knew that for several months, militant groups sympathetic to al-Qaeda were active in that area. They had fired an RPG at a British diplomatic convoy. They had attacked the International Red Cross office. They had bombed the perimeter wall of the very same compound that was attacked on 9/11. The Libyan government - the same Libyan government we had installed after ousting Gaddafi - had been warning us about security in the area and quickly determined that the incident was a planned and coordinated attack by militants. They stated this the very next day, even as our leaders were blaming YouTube.

The White House couldn't have Americans thinking it was terrorism because that didn't fit their campaign narrative. The election was only a few weeks away. Just days earlier, Joe Biden had arrogantly told Americans to ask Osama bin Laden if he was better off than he was four years ago.

Acknowledging a terrorist attack at that time would have been a political mess. So they blamed a YouTube video. It didn't rise to the level of a scandal or a conspiracy, but it was piss poor leadership. It was amateur hour politics at a time when the families of Christopher Stevens and his comrades deserved real leadership and honest answers.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Poor choice of words. I clarified that in my last sentence. Miss that? Is Trump refusing to uphold the Constitution in the way Joel suggests?

I haven't gone back to look, but I read it in a DMR article from the fair. It was basically, "I would keep the families together and send them back."

Edit: Here is what I found: “We have to keep the families together, but they have to go,” Mr. Trump said.

When asked what that actually means, as usual he just regurgitates meaningless crap:

When asked how he might accomplish this, especially given the cost, Mr. Trump responded with a question of his own.

“Do you think there’s tremendous cost for the illegals that are in here right now?” Mr. Trump asked. “Do you think there’s tremendous crime being committed by illegals?”

He promised to “expedite it so people can come back in” after the deportation. “The good people can come back,” he said.


The crimes committed by undocumented immigrants have been a focus of Mr. Trump’s early campaign. He has accused Mexico of sending criminals and rapists to the United States, and has often infuriated Latinos with his remarks.

In his formal policy, as he has many times before, Mr. Trump maintains that “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.”

 

[theIowaHawk]

I would be sincerely interested to read how he plans to "expedite it". And if he is expediting the "good ones" to come right back...why kick out the good ones in the first place?

 

[theIowaHawk]

First, I have no intention of voting for either Trump or Walker. Second, the idea of sending all illegal immigrants back to their country of origin is a bad idea and a logistical impossibility.

Having said that, you're missing a very important point regarding the 14th Amendment. Most prominent Republicans aren't suggesting we should disregard the 14th, rather that we should have the SCOTUS revisit the amendment and clarify exactly what it means. A lot of people, myself included, feel that a child is not necessarily entitled to American citizenship simply for popping out of its mother's birth canal in an American hospital if the mother wasn't here legally in the first place.

Can you help me out with your "interpretation" of the 14th? I mean, hell, you can disagree with it, but you seem to say it is just a confusion, a confusion that should be cleared up:

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.

I'm wondering where the confusion is. Is it the jurisdiction clause?

 

[naturalmwa]

Poor choice of words. I clarified that in my last sentence. Miss that? Is Trump refusing to uphold the Constitution in the way Joel suggests?

I think so. If you are taking US citizens and sending off to some foreign land their parents came from that would seem a pretty big violation of constitutional rights. Of course Trump/Walker would never get to follow through with such a plan, but it shows where there head is. Welfare is not the reason minorities don't vote R.

 

[theIowaHawk]

FiveThirtyEight just did a piece on Trump and his immigration "plan":

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/everything-donald-trumps-immigration-plan-gets-wrong/

According to the latest estimates from the Pew Research Center, there were about 11.2 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. in 2012. That’s down from a peak of about 12.2 million in 2007, and basically unchanged since 2009. In other words, there has been essentially no net illegal immigration in recent years — the number of people entering the country illegally has been offset by those leaving, voluntarily or otherwise. (For more on how Pew calculates these numbers, see my explanation from last year.)


Moreover, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico has been steadily declining since 2007, while a rising share are coming from Central America and Asia. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half of undocumented immigrants initially entered the country legally and then overstayed their visas. The number of people taken into custody at the border has decreased since 2012, according to the Department of Homeland Security, despite an improving economy that makes the U.S. a more attractive destination for workers from Mexico and Central America.

------------


“In 2011, the Government Accountability Office found that there were a shocking 3 million arrests attached to the incarcerated alien population, including tens of thousands of violent beatings, rapes and murders.” - Trump


Trump’s “3 million arrests” number comes from this 2011 General Accountability Office report on arrests and convictions of people in the U.S. illegally. But there are a couple of problems with the way he’s using the figure.


First, the 3 million number is a count of “arrest offenses,” not individual arrests; someone might be arrested one time but be charged with three different offenses. The GAO report looked at 249,000 “incarcerated criminal aliens” (immigrants, documented or undocumented, convicted and incarcerated for a crime) and estimated that they had been arrested 1.7 million times on 2.9 million separate charges.


Second, those “3 million arrests” were spread out over decades. The GAO sample includes arrests as far back as 1955, although the vast majority took place after 1990.


Finally, the GAO’s arrest statistics include arrests on immigration offenses. Some 65 percent of the “criminal aliens” in the report had been arrested at least once on an immigration charge. (The next highest category was drug offenses, at 48 percent.) “Violent beatings, rapes and murders” (assaults, sex offenses and homicides) account for a bit more than 10 percent of the offenses in the report.

 

[TJ8869]

Can you help me out with your "interpretation" of the 14th? I mean, hell, you can disagree with it, but you seem to say it is just a confusion, a confusion that should be cleared up:

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.

I'm wondering where the confusion is. Is it the jurisdiction clause?

Yes. "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." is the key requirement.

If the mother entered the country illegally then how can the baby be considered to be here legally?

 

[joelbc1]

First, I have no intention of voting for either Trump or Walker. Second, the idea of sending all illegal immigrants back to their country of origin is a bad idea and a logistical impossibility.

Having said that, you're missing a very important point regarding the 14th Amendment. Most prominent Republicans aren't suggesting we should disregard the 14th, rather that we should have the SCOTUS revisit the amendment and clarify exactly what it means. A lot of people, myself included, feel that a child is not necessarily entitled to American citizenship simply for popping out of its mother's birth canal in an American hospital if the mother wasn't here legally in the first place.

So here you believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says and therefore needs to be reinterpreted? A lot of folks in Germany felt that the Jews were the problem, too...........back in the day. Because "a lot" of folks think something doesn't mean it is correct..agreed?

 

[joelbc1]

Couldn't find the actual quote where Trump said he would send back illegal kids born in the US. He said he would deport the families of these kids and bring them (families) back quickly (the good ones). So, unless he actually said he was going to deport a US citizen, you're incorrect.

Go to his interview on MTP last Sunday. Chuck Todd did a double take when Trump said this and CAREFULLY repeated his question...The Donald responded that "if you're gonna have a country, you're gonna have to do this, Yes."

 

[pablow]

So here you believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says and therefore needs to be reinterpreted? A lot of folks in Germany felt that the Jews were the problem, too...........back in the day. Because "a lot" of folks think something doesn't mean it is correct..agreed?

This week's bad analogy award.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Yes. "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." is the key requirement.

If the mother entered the country illegally then how can the baby be considered to be here legally?

Well, because the 14th Amendment specifically says "born..."

Why wouldn't that child be subject to US jurisdiction? Most child-jurisdiction laws are where the children resides, and has resided for the previous X amount of time. The child is born in the US and has only resided in the US. Why would, say, Mexico, have any claim over the child? Because it had claim over the parent? We've never done that within our child jurisdiction laws in the US, it is where the child is, not the parent.

While you were answering this, I did a quick search for the arguments, and it showed what specific legislators believed in arguing the 14th, and the website was trying to push your idea, that they believed it wasn't about "anchor babies." But, in actually reading the quotes, I disagree. One was specifically in regard to Amabassadors, Consuls, children of dignitaries, etc. Which seems obvious enough, those people are here under the jurisdiction of their own country, therefore the child would "follow".

But why would a person who has specifically left their home country, entered in to another country (even illegally), and showed no specific desire to return still be under the prior country's jurisdiction? Why would their children, at all?

African slaves were kidnapped from their country, so it would be reasonable to believe they would like to return home, and never asked for US jurisdiction......but the 14th was partly to remedy this wrong, and we clearly, CLEARLY, meant for children of slaves born in the US to be citizens.

But, again, the answer to your question above is extremely easy: Because we said so, in the 14th.

Edit to add: I'm all for Constitutional Amendments, if someone disagrees with it, get the ball rolling!

 

[TJ8869]

So here you believe the Constitution doesn't mean what it says and therefore needs to be reinterpreted? A lot of folks in Germany felt that the Jews were the problem, too...........back in the day. Because "a lot" of folks think something doesn't mean it is correct..agreed?

Did you seriously equate opposition to unrestricted jus soliwith the extermination of 6 million Jews during the Holocaust?

Damn it, now I have to lower my expectations for you even further.

 

[pablow]

Well, because the 14th Amendment specifically says "born..."
. . .
But, again, the answer to your question above is extremely easy: Because we said so, in the 14th.

The argument that the Constitution, statute, or rule says so loses about 90% of the time in front of the US Supreme Court.