Jump to content

14th Amendment - Birthright Citizenship


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Me too!  My US Passport states place of birth as “Madrid, Spain”.   What it doesn’t say is it was on a US Airforce base.  Oh well, I won’t be fighting the deportation with mich vigor regardless.

I wouldn't mind being deported to Spain.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

Wouldn’t every African-American who was the descendant of slaves be a descendant of illegal aliens, and therefore be subject to having their citizenship revoked?

It's all up for grabs, every non-White person is at risk. The irony is that we've been here for 400+ years at this point, longer than many descendants of European immigrants that came later. My own line goes back to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the other from colonial French Louisiana, I'd laugh at a "go back to Africa" taunt.  Through thinly veiled words and actions they want a White ethnostate, even though we've always been a multi-racial and multi-cultural society from the beginning, and they also want to reinforce White hegemony a la pre-1964 at best, or post Reconstruction era 1877 at worst. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Miller's family has been in America less than half the time mine has been in Texas.

Fuck this dork. If Santa Claus was real he would put me in a cage with that pencil neck dork.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

Think about it for a minute though. The timberland some tribes own in Wisconsin, the mineral resources on the Pine Ridge reservation in SD and other tribal lands across the country, the casino properties, etc Just as many Japanese-Americans lost much of their assets during WWII when they were removed to camps far away from their homes, others stepped in and reaped the windfall of their labor. There are plenty of people who wouldn't bat an eyelash at this type of action.

 

 

There is a good article in a recent Smithsonian magazine about a few cool Americans who did the right thing and tended farms etc for their neighbors while they were away and welcomed them back when they were able to return. 

Oh, you thought I was being snarky and sarcastic?  MAGA is going to do whatever they can to remove the "undesirables" and disenfranchise those they can't easily evict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Country with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship (jus soli😞

The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and BarbudaArgentinaBarbadosBelizeBoliviaBrazilCanadaChad, Child, Costa RicaCubaDominicaEcuadorEl SalvadorFijiGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHondurasJamaicaLesothoMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesTanzaniaTrinidad and TobagoTuvalu, the United StatesUruguay, and Venezuela.

Nuances of birthright citizenship

Interestingly, nearly every nation that offers birthright citizenship is located in North or South America. This is considered by many scholars to have begun in colonial times, in which European countries eager to populate their settlements in the "New World" established more lenient and immigration-friendly citizenship policies. It should also be noted that birthright citizenship often has at least one exception: The children of foreign ambassadors or other diplomats serving in a country for work are frequently excluded.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Every Country with Unrestricted Birthright Citizenship (jus soli😞

The following countries have unrestricted birthright citizenship: Antigua and BarbudaArgentinaBarbadosBelizeBoliviaBrazilCanadaChad, Child, Costa RicaCubaDominicaEcuadorEl SalvadorFijiGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHondurasJamaicaLesothoMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesTanzaniaTrinidad and TobagoTuvalu, the United StatesUruguay, and Venezuela.

Nuances of birthright citizenship

Interestingly, nearly every nation that offers birthright citizenship is located in North or South America. This is considered by many scholars to have begun in colonial times, in which European countries eager to populate their settlements in the "New World" established more lenient and immigration-friendly citizenship policies. It should also be noted that birthright citizenship often has at least one exception: The children of foreign ambassadors or other diplomats serving in a country for work are frequently excluded.

 

Yes, it's widely well-known that most of the "New World" has more-or-less unrestricted jus soli and most of the "Old World" does not. I think most of Western Europe also has some form of jus soli, but with some restrictions.

What is the point you're trying to make?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Yes, it's widely well-known that most of the "New World" has more-or-less unrestricted jus soli and most of the "Old World" does not. I think most of Western Europe also has some form of jus soli, but with some restrictions.

What is the point you're trying to make?

He is an idiot. That's the only point he can make. He also hates the Constitution. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

What is the point you're trying to make?

The point that our policy was a practical one when we are a country that murdered a race of people and then didn't want to deal with the paperwork of documenting waves of immigrants from many countries.  

Now, a likely majority of people in this country would be happy to impose at least some kind of administrative burden upon immigrants.  Whether that is asylum or one parent going through a legal immigrations process, etc. Dems put this as an issue of "you either hate immigrants or you don't".  That's not the way most people, even the non-haters view it. 

I understand that it's a constitutional issue, but to not view it as a policy issue, given the present makeup of the court, is certainly sticking your head in the sand.

 

 

 

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The point that our policy was a practical one when we are a country that murdered a race of people and then didn't want to deal with the paperwork of documenting waves of immigrants from many countries.  

Now, a likely majority of people in this country would be happy to impose at least some kind of administrative burden upon immigrants.  Whether that is asylum or one parent going through a legal immigrations process, etc. Dems put this as an issue of "you either hate immigrants or you don't".  That's not the way most people, even the non-haters view it. 

I understand that it's a constitutional issue, but to not view it as a policy issue, given the present makeup of the court, is certainly sticking your head in the sand.

 

 

Didn't realize you were such a petulant cunt.  Bye.

You hate America and Americans. You should get the fuck out. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The point that our policy was a practical one when we are a country that murdered a race of people and then didn't want to deal with the paperwork of documenting waves of immigrants from many countries.  

Now, a likely majority of people in this country would be happy to impose at least some kind of administrative burden upon immigrants.  Whether that is asylum or one parent going through a legal immigrations process, etc. Dems put this as an issue of "you either hate immigrants or you don't".  That's not the way most people, even the non-haters view it. 

I understand that it's a constitutional issue, but to not view it as a policy issue, given the present makeup of the court, is certainly sticking your head in the sand.

 

 

 

If this wasn't being sponsored by this hateful administration in this hateful environment, and in this authoritarian way, but was instead a part of a rational immigration reform package subject to voter approval, even if indirect, it would be exactly as you say.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If this wasn't being sponsored by this hateful administration in this hateful environment, and in this authoritarian way, but was instead a part of a rational immigration reform package subject to voter approval, even if indirect, it would be exactly as you say.  

It's exactly as I say precisely because Trump won, he's got the courts, we already know their rulings will be activist in Trumps favor.  And it's all dripping with hate.

In another environment there wouldn't be the threat of a constitutional "reassessment".

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Now, a likely majority of people in this country would be happy to impose at least some kind of administrative burden upon immigrants.

There are several posters on this very site who've told stories of the substantial administrative burdens they (or family members) have borne to obtain citizenship.

Quote

Dems put this as an issue of "you either hate immigrants or you don't". 

No, they haven't. Now, yes, FOX News and other conservative media outlets have framed Democrats as holding that position, and much of the mainstream media is too lazy to point out that Dems have proposed consistently put forward major legislative legislation going back to at least the Obama administration to overhaul our immigration system. EACH and every time, those legislative proposals have been killed by Republicans. We've already had this discussion in other immigration threads.

Congrats on falling for right wing propaganda.

Quote

 

I understand that it's a constitutional issue, but to not view it as a policy issue, given the present makeup of the court, is certainly sticking your head in the sand.

 

Who doesn't see immigration reform as a policy issue? The Dems have demonstrated over and over they're willing to work on the policy; hence, all the efforts to pass legislation.

And, yes, if we narrow this discussion back down to gutting the 14th Amendment. That's more than a Constitutional "issue." It's a fucking Constitutional CRISIS because THIS PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO UNILATERALLY NULLIFY A PORTION OF THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!!!

Ultimately, that's a bigger fucking deal than arguing policy.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

It's exactly as I say precisely because Trump won, he's got the courts, we already know their rulings will be activist in Trumps favor.  And it's all dripping with hate.

In another environment there wouldn't be the threat of a constitutional "reassessment".

 

What point are you trying to make? Anyone who supports illegal actions to try and nullify the Constitution is traitorous trash. If you want to change birthright citizenship, pursue a constitutional amendment. Trying to blame the illegal actions of Trump on others for not embracing your stupid policy discussion is moronic.  Get the fuck out. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

No, they haven't. Now, yes, FOX News and other conservative media outlets have framed Democrats as holding that position, and much of the mainstream media is too lazy to point out that Dems have proposed consistently put forward major legislative legislation going back to at least the Obama administration to overhaul our immigration system. EACH and every time, those legislative proposals have been killed by Republicans. We've already had this discussion in other immigration threads.

Congrats on falling for right wing propaganda.

Tell me exactly the way the Dems jumped on this issue and marketed their response in a way that should have convinced Americans that the Dems were attempting to resolve the issue of millions of undocumented workers.  Whether or not you actually believe it is even an issue, it certainly was a political issue that had to be dealt with.

And are you seriously arguing that the Dems did an even passable job at trying to counter disinformation about the issue until late in the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

And, yes, if we narrow this discussion back down to gutting the 14th Amendment. That's more than a Constitutional "issue." It's a fucking Constitutional CRISIS because THIS PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO UNILATERALLY NULLIFY A PORTION OF THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION!!!

Hopefully your boded letters don't reflect that this is a surprise to you.

I can agree without added emphasis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Tell me exactly the way the Dems jumped on this issue and marketed their response in a way that should have convinced Americans that the Dems were attempting to resolve the issue of millions of undocumented workers.  Whether or not you actually believe it is even an issue, it certainly was a political issue that had to be dealt with.

And are you seriously arguing that the Dems did an even passable job at trying to counter disinformation about the issue until late in the game?

They did a fucking TERRIBLE job at marketing, messaging, and countering disinformation, but that's a wholly separate discussion from "policy" and unconstitutional actions by the Cunt-in-Chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

They did a fucking TERRIBLE job at marketing, messaging, and countering disinformation, but that's a wholly separate discussion from "policy" and unconstitutional actions by the Cunt-in-Chief.

Rather than go back and forth, are you even remotely interested in the whether the policy of birthright citizenship is worth debating?

Are abortion rights worth debating?

Are the limits of Presidential immunity worth debating?

I'm saying that the opposition needs to know what they want as policy and as potential amendments when the shit hits the fan.  Because I don't think most in the opposition aren't wedded to an absolute birthright citizenship in the same way they would be to abortion rights and limits on presidential power. 

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Hopefully your boded letters don't reflect that this is a surprise to you.

I can agree without added emphasis.

Of course, it's not a surprise. If you haven't noticed, I (and many others) have been warning about this motherfucker for far longer than the three years that you've been around.

The emphasis is there because you've fallen into the same fucking predictable "blame the Dems no matter what" narrative and someone needs to slap you upside the head over it.

Here's a nice little thread where you can get caught up: https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/1965-daca-immigration-reform-whatever/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Of course, it's not a surprise. If you haven't noticed, I (and many others) have been warning about this motherfucker for far longer than the three years that you've been around.

The emphasis is there because you've fallen into the same fucking predictable "blame the Dems no matter what" narrative and someone needs to slap you upside the head over it.

Here's a nice little thread where you can get caught up: https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/topic/1965-daca-immigration-reform-whatever/

 

You need to breathe, dude.  You're getting hysterical.

I am blaming the dems for the same thinks you agreed with me a couple of posts up.  I'm certainly blaming the dems for not winning.  I'm not blaming dems for inventing Trump's proposals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Tell me exactly the way the Dems jumped on this issue and marketed their response in a way that should have convinced Americans that the Dems were attempting to resolve the issue of millions of undocumented workers.  Whether or not you actually believe it is even an issue, it certainly was a political issue that had to be dealt with.

And are you seriously arguing that the Dems did an even passable job at trying to counter disinformation about the issue until late in the game?

Are you seriously saying that the mouth breathers and Rogen Bros who have tuned out any news but Fox News and the spittle croaked musings from Trump’s mouth would’ve voted one way differently if we had five hours a day of the Democrat Knowledge Channel giving detailed analysis of why the right was wrong?

My God, man, don’t you understand?! somewhere…in some state…some trans kid will do better than their daughter in softball!!!!

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Are you seriously saying that the mouth breathers and Rogen Bros who have tuned out any news but Fox News and the spittle croaked musings from Trump’s mouth would’ve voted one way differently if we had five hours a day of the Democrat Knowledge Channel giving detailed analysis of why the right was wrong?

I'm not saying that seriously. 

Because I'm not remotely saying that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

You need to breathe, dude.  You're getting hysterical.

I am blaming the dems for the same thinks you agreed with me a couple of posts up.  I'm certainly blaming the dems for not winning.  I'm not blaming dems for inventing Trump's proposals. 

No, you were arguing that Dems weren't taking immigration policy seriously by repeating Republican talking points about Dem inaction. You did not argue anything about marketing/fighting disinformation until I brought it up that the GOP was lying.

Until this "blatantly unconstitutional" (as the Reagan-appointed judge put it) crisis is over, I refuse to discuss policy like it's some simple matter of rational disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Okay.  You seem hyped up on stare decisis and self-righteousness, so I won't push the issue.

Do you remotely understand how your seeming dismissive attitude to the reality of the Constitution being shredded before our eyes appears to folks here?  And why the fact that the administration is going ahead with its deportation policies on steroids before a test case has been decided by SCOTUS is so fucking terrifying?

Put another way, this is not a nothing burger. it is the start of an authoritarian regime.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Do you remotely understand how your seeming dismissive attitude to the reality of the Constitution being shredded before our eyes appears to folks here?

I haven't made any comments which are dismissive of the constitutional issue.  I brought up the policy issue of whether it makes sense to have an absolute birthright citizenship amendment.   

I'm not bemoaning that you're dismissive of that, although you are absolutely, literally dismissive about that.

I don't really care what appears to folks. although I'll accept blame for lack of clarity in typing or communicating. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Do you remotely understand how your seeming dismissive attitude to the reality of the Constitution being shredded before our eyes appears to folks here?  And why the fact that the administration is going ahead with its deportation policies on steroids before a test case has been decided by SCOTUS is so fucking terrifying?

Put another way, this is not a nothing burger. it is the start of an authoritarian regime.

Look, you need to get past the fact that Trump has a gun to the head of your child while demanding that we choose between going out for Chinese or Italian tonight, saying he'll blow her fucking brains out if we choose wrong.

What's important is that we need to have a discussion about whether Chinese or Italian food is better.  You're just getting distracted by the real-time threat of murder by a man holding a gun to the head of your kid.  Focus, people.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The point that our policy was a practical one when we are a country that murdered a race of people and then didn't want to deal with the paperwork of documenting waves of immigrants from many countries.  

Now, a likely majority of people in this country would be happy to impose at least some kind of administrative burden upon immigrants.  Whether that is asylum or one parent going through a legal immigrations process, etc. Dems put this as an issue of "you either hate immigrants or you don't".  That's not the way most people, even the non-haters view it. 

I understand that it's a constitutional issue, but to not view it as a policy issue, given the present makeup of the court, is certainly sticking your head in the sand.

 

 

 

Motherfucker are you serious?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I haven't made any comments which are dismissive of the constitutional issue.  I brought up the policy issue of whether it makes sense to have an absolute birthright citizenship amendment.   

I'm not bemoaning that you're dismissive of that, although you are absolutely, literally dismissive about that.

I don't really care what appears to folks. although I'll accept blame for lack of clarity in typing or communicating. 

 

Ryan Reynolds Reaction GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I thought the start was the presidential immunity decision. 

But hey, if it hasn't started I'm putting an extra dash of bitters in my soda this evening.

Yeah, the presidential immunity decision was extremely disturbing. But foolish me, it did not seem at the time to be as disturbing as advocating rounding up people who have previously been considered American citizens, or our president threatening to seize Greenland - or make Canada (a sovereign nation), our 51st state -  or declaring tariffs on a country for refusing to let one of our deportation buses land.     

But since we are fast approaching Carnival in New Orleans, maybe you were just trying out your Ani costume and pointing out important side issues we have not considered.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

But foolish me, it did not seem at the time to be as disturbing as advocating rounding up people who have previously been considered American citizens, or our president threatening to seize Greenland - or make Canada (a sovereign nation), our 51st state -  or declaring tariffs on a country for refusing to let one of our deportation buses land.     

Well you do sound foolish, when you group the first with the other three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Republicans would probably say the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 and times have changed.
And the same ones would say nothing at all has changed since 1791 when the 2nd Amendment ratified. 

Oh, it’s much worse than that. There’s a sizable movement that says it doesn’t exist at all. Because the rebellious southern states didn’t freely ratify it. So, it’s simply…not a thing. At least 3-4 of our current SCOTUS justices would agree. ACB may be the person to decide whether we even HAVE a 14th amendment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Oh, it’s much worse than that. There’s a sizable movement that says it doesn’t exist at all. Because the rebellious southern states didn’t freely ratify it. So, it’s simply…not a thing. At least 3-4 of our current SCOTUS justices would agree. ACB may be the person to decide whether we even HAVE a 14th amendment.

But there would be some spirited intellectual disagreement over the amount of blood that deems you a slave.  I mean, since we all know the Founders had no issue with slavery.  And we have to consider all of those property owners who were denied the right to vote on those abolition laws because they were under military duress.

I don’t think Thomas would have much problem with that - because I’m sure Ginny would sign some manumission  papers in advance of the decision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

And not a word about your presidential immunity comment. Well done. 

Thanks.  I would think most people would appreciate that presidential immunity and birthright citizenship are clearly aimed at pushing Constitutional interpretation to extremes. Whereas the power to acquire territory and lay tariffs won't require those.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Thanks.  I would think most people would appreciate that presidential immunity and birthright citizenship are clearly aimed at pushing Constitutional interpretation to extremes. Whereas the power to acquire territory and lay tariffs won't require those.

 

Well, I admittedly was wandering around the authoritarian regime start issue and intermixed it with the other subject in hand. So that is my bad. I have no real desire in getting a pissing contest with you over limited verbiage texts on these things, because you seem to be on the good side of our current political divide. 

And I have to admit it’s hard for me to post anymore on any of these subjects without being really fucking pissed while I’m doing it. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gernblansten said:

I think Republicans would probably say the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 and times have changed.

And the same ones would say nothing at all has changed since 1791 when the 2nd Amendment ratified. 

Yeah, if they said that, that would be a "living Constitution" librul argument, not an originalist one.  The problem here is that the 14th Amendment was drafted imprecisely because there wasn't a whole lot of disciplined thinking going on then, a lot like the 2nd Amendment.

An interesting article about the 14th, orignalism, and ratification. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=nulr

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

And I have to admit it’s hard for me to post anymore on any of these subjects without being really fucking pissed while I’m doing it. Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon. 

As a way of protecting my somewhat fragile state of well-being, I'm really trying to be stoic about the issues coming forward, and really reaching as hard as I can to try to keep my emotions at bay, and I guess I'm posturing a stoic indifference, and that's grating I'm sure.  My daughter in DC really lost her shit, and I'm spending lots of time being a bit of an apologist, just so she doesn't burn too many bridges.    

If I'm going to continue to post on these pages, I think I'm going to likely come across this way on other issues.  Will try harder.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

As a way of protecting my somewhat fragile state of well-being, I'm really trying to be stoic about the issues coming forward, and really reaching as hard as I can to try to keep my emotions at bay, and I guess I'm posturing a stoic indifference, and that's grating I'm sure.  My daughter in DC really lost her shit, and I'm spending lots of time being a bit of an apologist, just so she doesn't burn too many bridges.    

If I'm going to continue to post on these pages, I think I'm going to likely come across this way on other issues.  Will try harder.

Sorry to hear that. The stoicism is understandable.  I’m having a similar issue with my youngest son who recently moved back in with me.  While not agreeing with them, he was a strident mouthpiece describing why the young people who hated Biden had legitimate reasons.  We had some heated conversations with me saying, “if those assholes wanna be like Nader voters who gave the election to Bush, and then whined about his environmental policies, fine.  I’ll probably be dead in a decade and they’ll have their lives to live in this shit.”

He doesn’t want to talk about politics now.  I think his understanding of what I was talking about is hitting him hard. 

Oh.  Please keep posting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...