Jump to content

14th Amendment - Birthright Citizenship


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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. 

EnchantingExemplaryHoverfly-max-1mb.gif.0e5b474f9422dc6542befbf1754bc895.gif

 

im over here like well, if an EO can override the constitution and allow the round up people, why can't an EO override the constitution and allow the round up of guns?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mchookem said:

EnchantingExemplaryHoverfly-max-1mb.gif.0e5b474f9422dc6542befbf1754bc895.gif

 

im over here like well, if an EO can override the constitution and allow the round up people, why can't an EO override the constitution and allow the round up of guns?

Because guns have more value than people in America. Duh.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mchookem said:

EnchantingExemplaryHoverfly-max-1mb.gif.0e5b474f9422dc6542befbf1754bc895.gif

 

im over here like well, if an EO can override the constitution and allow the round up people, why can't an EO override the constitution and allow the round up of guns?

No it can't.

There is a bit of an argument over what the 14th Amendment means, though, because it has some pesky-ass words in it.

The EO is based on a reading of the 14th that is cynical given the times and the anti-immigrant rhetoric.  But if it had arisen in a different context, it has a bit of meat to it.

The fact of the matter is that we, the United States, never gave much consideration to citizenship from founding until the Civil War, when we clearly intended to give US-born slaves citizenship.

Then we didn't think about it again for another 150 years.  And now we're thinking about it again in this shitty-ass context.

In a different context, it would be a valid immigration policy question whether we really do want to confer unlimited jus soli citizenship, and whether the 14th needs to be amended/rescinded to do or modify that.

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

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

No it can't.

There is a bit of an argument over what the 14th Amendment means, though, because it has some pesky-ass words in it.

The EO is based on a reading of the 14th that is cynical given the times and the anti-immigrant rhetoric.  But if it had arisen in a different context, it has a bit of meat to it.

The fact of the matter is that we, the United States, never gave much consideration to citizenship from founding until the Civil War, when we clearly intended to give US-born slaves citizenship.

Then we didn't think about it again for another 150 years.  And now we're thinking about it again in this shitty-ass context.

In a different context, it would be a valid immigration policy question whether we really do want to confer unlimited jus soli citizenship, and whether the 14th needs to be amended/rescinded to do or modify that.

I fully expect there to be a re-examination of the Dred Scott decision. Nobody but white people will be safe.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The fact of the matter is that we, the United States, never gave much consideration to citizenship from founding until the Civil War, when we clearly intended to give US-born slaves citizenship.

More info on that 

2236_001.pdf

^James H. Kettner “The Creation of Citizenship in the British American Colonies and Early United States,” in Jon Gjerde, ed., Major Problems in American Immigration and Ethnic History (Houghton Mifflin, 1998). [reprinted from Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870 (1978)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...