Republican presidential candidate Andy Martin is also a constitutional scholar who has studied and litigated constitutional law for over 45 years. Andy responds to the “great constitutional debate” triggered by Donald Trump’s views on illegal immigration. Andy completely supports Trump’s view that “anchor babies” can be denied citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, Andy issued a public statement on that precise issue in 2007, supporting Trump’s current arguments. Because of his unique personal history of extensive experience in the areas of law, politics, foreign policy and business, Andy’s views as a candidate/author add a unique perspective to the 2016 presidential election.

News from:

ANDY MARTIN /2016        

Republican candidate for

President of the United States       

“Make America Great Again”

                    

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

National headquarters:

P. O. Box 1851

New York, NY10150-1851

New Hampshire Headquarters:

P.O. Box 742

Manchester, NY03105

Tel. (866) 706-2639; Cell (917) 664-9329

Fax (866) 214-3210

E-mail:

Andy@AndyMartinforPresident.com

Blogs:

www.AndyforPresident.blogspot.com

www.AndyforPresident.wordpress.com

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

 

Republican presidential candidate and constitutional scholar Andy Martin has been writing about illegal immigration and “anchor babies” since 2007

 

Andy says that Donald Trump has forever changed the compass of the immigration debate in the United States

 

In the second of his “Letters From the 2016 Presidential Campaign” Andy explains why illegal immigration can and must be stopped

 

Andy welcomes the “great constitutional debate” that has been triggered by Donald Trump

 

To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line

 

(Please feel free to forward and/or post this email)

 

(New York)(August 20, 2015)  Dear American:

 

Donald Trump has triggered a great national debate on illegal and legal immigration. In the following comments I endorse Trump’s claim that a constitutional amendment is not required to eliminate automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, or so-called “anchor babies.”

 

1. Trump has triggered a worthy constitutional debate

 

As I said last week in Washington, I wear two hats in this presidential race. I am a dark horse candidate, but doing no worse than the half dozen or so similarly situated candidates who are near “0” but are still treated by the national media as though they have a chance of winning.

 

And I come to the campaign table with a long and extensive resume of experience in the real world, from foreign policy to fighting political corruption to advocating for an end to illegal immigration. Like Donald Trump I contemplated the prospect of building a family real estate fortune. But unlike Donald I took what Robert Frost called “the [road] less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.” And as is so often the case when I look at Trump-the-candidate, I see someone who might have enjoyed living the unconventional life I did.

 

One of my areas of interest has been constitutional litigation and scholarship. I have studied the illegal immigration crisis for a long time, ever since Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy in 1965 worked to pass an immigration law that would radically change the ethnicity of the United States.

 

Thus I was absolutely delighted when Donald Trump decided to issue his first policy paper on immigration and the illegal immigration crisis. Trump has triggered a “great national debate” on constitutional law concerning citizenship and immigration.

 

Wednesday night, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell was citing the 1845 common law case of Lynch v. Clark (please see link [1] below) to justify the legality of anchor babies. What O’Donnell did not realize is that both Congress and the states are free to change the common law, and that the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress extensive powers to legislate in the area of citizenship. (For example, the United States inherited “common law” marriage; all of the states have since repealed that status.)

 

But whether you support my views and Trump’s views, or endorse opposing views, I think it is wonderful that Americans are having this national debate. That’s what elections are for. We will be a stronger nation for having thrashed these issues out in the national arena.

 

2. Should the GOP be afraid of Hispanic threats to retaliate?

 

I spent many years with the Florida Republican Party. Hispanics are an integral part of the party’s base. Republicans are not even remotely anti-Hispanic or anti-Latino merely because we support secure borders and strict citizenship requirements.

 

The media and the Democratic Party’s illegal immigration supporters are constantly warning Republicans that Latinos will take revenge at the ballot box because Republicans seek to define and defend our national and constitutional borders. Should Republicans be afraid?

 

If supporters of illegal immigration feel so antagonistic towards America and American values, they are not real Americans. Americans put America first, not their former homelands. People who support breaking our immigration laws are no better than people who support robbing banks. In both instance they are supporting criminal acts. Respect for the law and for our constitutional values is a cornerstone of American citizenship.

 

Republicans may be risking a Latino backlash, but Latinos are also risking a massive American backlash. Barack Obama has already delivered Republican majorities in the House and Senate to Republicans. I am confident the White House will be next.

 

American citizens and legal residents of Latino heritage or indeed any heritage should be strong supporters of our immigration laws and traditions. The place to change immigration laws is in Congress, not on the Rio Grande River. People who support illegal immigration and threaten retaliation on Election Day are admitting they do not have the support of the American People to lawfully change our laws.

 

3. My own writing on “anchor babies”

 

Here is what I wrote eight years ago in 2007 on anchor babies (see link [2] for my full statement):

 

“I have researched the applicable law in detail, and the legal issues are complex. But I am convinced that Congress has the power to override Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which was itself only a 5-4 decision. Thus, even on the Supreme Court an issue analogous to anchor babies was a closely divided matter.

 

“Illegals present in the United States are at best ‘visitors.’ They enjoy the protection of U. S. laws, but that does not necessarily mean they are automatically entitled to create citizenship for children that are born during their visits. I don’t think, for example, that Mexico grants automatic citizenship to children that are accidentally born there to visitors or tourists.

 

“The Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress broad powers under section 5. The Supreme Court has shown great deference to congressional enactments in the area of citizenship and naturalization, as indeed it must under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Clearly under the legal doctrine of ‘original intent’ the several states did not intend by adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to grant citizenship to the children of persons who had entered the United States illegally.

 

“A federal statute would, in order to be constitutional, operate prospectively, i.e. in the future. Congress does not have the power to revoke citizenship that may have been granted under existing interpretations of the law.

 

“But by removing the anchor baby incentive for illegal immigration we would cut off future Arellano travesties, where someone gives birth to create an anchor for continued illegal presence in the United States.”

 

Obviously, I have studied the constitutional issues involving illegal immigration for a long time. And I have also presented carefully crafted solutions to end the anchor baby crisis. Unlike the many cable TV bobbleheads who pop off on the issue of anchor babies, I have given the situation a constitutionally nuanced review. I am convinced a constitutional amendment is not necessary and that Donald Trump’s views on that point are correct.

 

4. Trump overlooked the growing “birth tourism” scandal

 

Ironically, in seeking to explain the extent of the current immigration crisis Trump did not even mention “birth tourism.” Birth tourism occurs when someone comes to the United States with the specific intent to give birth and create American citizenship, see link [3] below. Are you outraged by birth tourism, or do you think it is a great idea that foreigners come here on a tourist visa to give birth? Let me know, and let Donald Trump know. Tell him “Andy sent me.”

 

5. Where do we go from here?

 

Trump has changed forever the trajectory of immigration reform in Congress. The flaccid Republican congressional leadership will have to adopt a more aggressive approach, or congressional leaders will be removed in 2017.

 

Jeb Bush’s political pedigree as a self-styled Mexican-American has been demolished. Bush is no longer a credible candidate for the Republican Party presidential nomination, whether Trump prevails or not. Bush is finished as a potential national leader of the Republican Party.

 

Because Trump has created what will evolve into a new Republican “base line” on immigration, whether he wins the nomination or not, he has changed the future of politics in this country. As immigration activists continue to agitate for the United States to surrender its sovereignty to an uncontrolled invasion of foreigners from Mexico, Central America and other parts of the world, an American “backlash” is emerging to fight the proponents of unlimited illegal immigration. Trump is making what was once thought to be “unthinkable” and “impossible,” thinkable and possible: secure borders and an end to illegal alien birthright citizenship.

 

Americans are striking back and taking back their nation from the tide of illegal immigration and those internal saboteurs who are striving to subsume the United States in a Third World morass.

 

LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):

 

[1]

 

 

[2]

 

 

[3]

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-36000-foreign-birth-tourists-here-to-make-u.s.-babies/article/2563721

 

New citations after emailing:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/20/jeb-bush-cites-ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-in-defending-birthright-citizenship/?hpw&rref=politics&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

 

WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT ANDY MARTIN:

 

One author has called Andy Martin the “big kahuna” of the anti-[Barack] Obama movement. Another said “Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…” Another says, “The only American journalists that are ‘standing UP’ [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”

 

ANDY MARTIN – A BRIEF BIO:

 

Andy Martin is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. With forty-seven years of background in radio and television and with five decades of investigative and analytical experience in Washington, the USA and around the world, Andy provides insight on politics, foreign policy, intelligence and military matters. For a full bio, go to: ; also see www.BoycottABC.com/executive_director.htm

 

Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. See also ; . He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).

 

He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” blogging at and .

 

Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester, New Hampshire 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He is New Hampshire’s leading corruption fighter and Republican Party reformer.
UPDATES:

Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]

 

© Copyright by Andy Martin 2015 – All Rights Reserved The teaching assistants were taught to use a standard pro forma for feedback, which aided https://pro-academic-writers.com consistency of both volume and style of feedback