Trump’s Immigration Faux Pas

Donald Trump is the 21st Century’s PT Barnum…he’s a showman. He’s flippant, he’s brash, and he comes up with some very interesting arguments to back up his positions. Unfortunately, sometimes, like when he was recently talking to Fox News Channels’ Bill O’Reilly about his immigration idea, he can be as full of hot air as any other politician out there.

Donald Trump actually told Bill O’Reilly that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is “unconstitutional”. HUH? Wait a minute… how can an amendment to the constitution be unconstitutional? Actually, it can’t. Legally, if it’s in the constitution, it, by the very definition of the word IS constitutional. Here’s the 14th Amendment for you to peruse. For brevity’s sake, I’ll only include Section 1…because that’s where the controversial part is:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See, it’s that first sentence that screws up Trump. All persons BORN in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. It makes it pretty clear that unless you change the 14th Amendment, and there are two ways to do that, you’re stuck with the notion if pregnant women give birth to a child in this country, that child is indeed a citizen of this country. That doesn’t mean the mother, the father, and the rest of the family are, or should be.

But for Trump to tell anyone that a part of the constitution is actually unconstitutional steps in a steamy pile of dog doo showing that he obviously never went to law school….and I think he probably forgot what they taught him at Wharton!

The two ways you can change that amendment to make it so people don’t have a birthright in this country (which by the way I would support), are first and foremost, getting it through both houses of congress with a two-thirds vote, and then it has to pass two-thirds of the states’ legislatures. Failure to do that means it fails. There IS another way to do it though. If 75% of the states (38 in this case) decide they want to open a constitutional convention, and their state legislatures all pass it and it’s signed by the governors, then one is opened. However, anything that comes before the convention is fair game, not just the issue that caused the convention to be caused in the first place.

That’s one of the reasons most conservatives don’t want to have the convention called. Call it for term-limits in congress, or changing the 14th Amendment to do away with the birthright clause, and someone could bring up the issue of the second amendment and void that. There’s always that danger…which is why a constitutional convention has never passed one of the various amendments.

Trump is wrong in his assertions. I just wonder how much other stuff he’s been spouting off on is he wrong about?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


5 thoughts on “Trump’s Immigration Faux Pas

  1. Reblogged this on Brittius and commented:
    Trump is correct, as the 2nd amendment has been bastardized for decades. If one amendment above any other is declared moot, then selectively altering and/or modifying any other amendment, is acceptable. Opening the US Constitution, means that, until it is closed, there is no law of the land, and there is no crime of murder, rape, arson, kidnap, burglary, etc., as no law exists. Everyone is on their best behavior. Another form of government can, be moved in and replace our Constitutional Republic. Very dangerous. If the 14A is to stand forth, too, should 2A, unmolested by imbeciles in places of authority that they do not deserve and definitely few, have earned. If 2a is too “dangerous”, then 14A has a long history where commission of crime, can impact the interpretations. This is also why, the Islamics want to abolish the Constitution once they take over this nation and replace it with Sharia. Long term trouble.

  2. He is a showman and he is striking a chord with frustrated Americans The amendment in question had to do with freed slaves if I am correct and if not please feel free to correct me. As you mentioned term limits, to me that is quite important I would love to see term limits put in place fot more than just the office of the President. Term limits could open the door to the end of a lot of unattractive idiocy that goes on in government mainly ending careers of people like Pelosi, Boehner,Reid etc I feel a six year term should be long enough and I also don’t feel the tax payer should pay their salaries for life either. We should set a flat rate of what they are paid and thats it no voting themselves raises.. Okay I am done because I could rant on this crap all friggin day. =)

    • Not sure if the 14th amendment was specifically referring to slavery…it was written about 80 years before the civil war…but it could be. I’m with you that “career politicians” never leads to anything good…six years would be a good out for all concerned (1 term in the senate, 3 terms in the house)…and I’d be for giving the president 1 six year term as well.

Comments are closed.