I agree PALADIN

http://projectcamelotportal.com/blog-archive/77-paladin/2625-an-open-letter-to-the-elders-2

http://projectcamelotportal.com/blog-archive/77-paladin/2636-the-trump-factor


(pre contrast article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-18/here-s-what-the-u-s-economy-would-look-like-if-trump-deported-undocumented-immigrants )

and reed up to date Trump news: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/conservative-expert-trump-plan-ignores-immigration-benefits-n411316

-- On note: Dear Mr. (or MS?) PALADIN: I agree with your assessments but have one major idea of why Trump would like to tackle the idea of families crossing the boarder and anchor babies. with what? yes the idea of changing our constitution and what qualifies as a citizen with birthright citizenship. That is indeed a dangerous idea. To get rid of it is politically wealthy for...the wealthy because it would only require all the wealthy and the politically in power to stay in power just that much more.

How?

Well, first by default a country has the right to declare what a citizen is, and birthright citizenship is a very good start to a long awaiting game of politics that everyone plays with (I am also including any kind of communication with lazy people and too poor to find the time to vote trying to make ends meet.) Nonetheless, birthright citizenship and any political revocation of such is itself a way to get politicians to target individuals in espionage like manner (a security breach nonetheless for foreign spies to use against a domestic nation;) that, if a citizen of a country denounces or even complains before political discourse and understanding of the situation arises then in due course (or even if due diligence of law is taken seriously in a country exists) the politician can get the citizen removed from the population. removing their citizenship is just an extra tool to posses the creeps from always keeping their power election cycle after election cycle (if there is one for that specific country.) Remember that citizenship really means to sit-and-sin (upon the land and manage it for the king (or government.)) OK, maybe I am playing around with the phonics of the word citizen, but removing such prestige was important tool for the lawmaker to manage the political discourse of any country. Understand that we are in a NAZI like country where the only paper you really have to produce is one's birth certificate to proof of citizenship as a native  born US Citizen; in hope I have that we do not go down the road of are you a citizen and how do we treat you as many know that too many lawyers of bureaucracy equals a giant bloated government of fact checkers who tax the time and space out of the freedoms we are required to have to behave efficiently. Lastly, also know that the United States Constitution requires the president to be a native born citizen of American land; just another reason that birthright citizenship is best to leave alone such an issue with illiegal immigration and anchor babies.