Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What was the purpose of the 14th amendment when it was adopted?

according to textualists, it was to establish that 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.

  • Like 7
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What was the purpose of the 14th amendment when it was adopted?

Restoring jus soli which until Dred Scott was so well understood to be the law that it had never occurred to anyone it actually needed to be written into the law.

  • Like 3
Posted
25 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

What was the purpose of the 14th amendment when it was adopted?

"The first section of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution  begins with the words, ‘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.’ As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States, who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford (1857) 19 How. 393; and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States."  

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Anastasis said:

What was the purpose of the 14th amendment when it was adopted?

It was to prevent Canadian born Cubans from ever being president 

Edited by Horn Dog
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Brandywine said:

I just can’t believe Trump comes up with all this on his own. So, who’s really running this country?

Stephen Miller and Sean Hannity.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Mack Tripper said:

So one Senator who is no longer in office and now disavows a previous position is what these idiots are relying upon? Goodbye and good luck.

This is what these clowns don't get: For many of us, our beliefs aren't beholden to a specific party. We believe what we believe.

Go ahead and smear Reid (who holds no office). I don't give a shit.

  • Like 3
Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

Lulz, so now yall agree with Reid? The weirdest appeal to authority is when people do it to people with whom they disagree generally. 

I think that's called "But [insert political name i don't agree with here]"

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I think that's called "But [insert political name i don't agree with here]"

I really think it's called #bothsides. 

For me, I think it's fairly easy to outline my beliefs. Birthright citizenship is not a bright line for me, but I reckon it's better than the alternative. Further, I think it is clear that trump is stirring this shit pot because the caravan is coming to take our jobs as programmers, lawyers, analysts, and architects. 

That republicans have harry fucking Reid agreeing with trump AS A DEFENSE is laughable. Congrats? I guess. 

Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

I really think it's called #bothsides. 

as it well should.  over any period of inspection, immigration definitely trends towards a both sides clusterfuck. 

Posted

What seems interesting to me is that I thought with our relatively low birthrate we needed immigrants.  So let's keep our low birth rates, improve our public schools with vocational, and allow immigrants who want to work (and their children in).  Seems like a win win.

Lemonada3.jpg

Posted (edited)

So what's the argument that babies of illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.? I listened to an interview yesterday and the first thing the guy did was say that it means something completely different from what it says. Something about owing allegiance to another country.

He didn't mention how a newborn baby could owe allegiance to another country.

Edited by Bookman
Posted

Many conservative judges are pretty textualist/originalist (Scalia wing) and it's hard for me to see how the 14th Amendment can be tweaked to be interpreted differently than what appears to be it's plain meaning on birthright citizenship.  I think it would take the sort of judicial activism you ordinarily would not see from a Gorsuch type judge.  While there was some other meaning behind it specific to the Scott case, it also clarified a pretty plain meaning right in my humble opinion.  I personally wasn't happy with Obama overreaching sometimes on executive orders and the same applies for me with Trump.  The nature and reach of executive power and jurisprudence by judges is far more critical long-term than any one political issue or party/politician.

Posted

This isn’t a real debate. It’s only mentioned to motivate racists to vote. Get enough out in TX and TN they can probably keep senate majority. It will not come up after Tues

Posted
4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This isn’t a real debate. It’s only mentioned to motivate racists to vote. Get enough out in TX and TN they can probably keep senate majority. It will not come up after Tues

 It is the legal equivalent of arguing whether the moon is made of cheese. I feel that is insulting myself to even get involved. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Bookman said:

So what's the argument that babies of illegal immigrants aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.? I listened to an interview yesterday and the first thing the guy did was say that it means something completely different from what it says. Something about owing allegiance to another country.

He didn't mention how a newborn baby could owe allegiance to another country.

keep the kid.  Deport the parents.

That'll go over like a fart in church.

Posted

While I don't think it should be done by Executive Order,  I would like to see birthright citizenship go away.  

As a poster mentioned earlier, it was implemented to give citizenship to freed slaves.  I think citizenship should be granted automatically based on the citizenship of the mother, and applied for in all other cases.  I have a nephew who was born in Germany, but he's not a German citizen.  

While racism may be behind the Right's reasoning, getting rid of birthright citizenship isn't an inherently racist position.  In my case it's largely a fiscal one.  

I want universal healthcare and education in the US.  That's sustainable if anyone citizenship is granted solely based on being born in the US.

So, aside from attacking Trump (which I do on a regular), or claimed racism, what is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?  

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So, aside from attacking Trump (which I do on a regular), or claimed racism, what is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?  

It gives people a country to belong to, forever. 

Moreover, preventing an ethnostate is good enough for me. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

While I don't think it should be done by Executive Order,  I would like to see birthright citizenship go away.  

As a poster mentioned earlier, it was implemented to give citizenship to freed slaves.  I think citizenship should be granted automatically based on the citizenship of the mother, and applied for in all other cases.  I have a nephew who was born in Germany, but he's not a German citizen.  

While racism may be behind the Right's reasoning, getting rid of birthright citizenship isn't an inherently racist position.  In my case it's largely a fiscal one.  

I want universal healthcare and education in the US.  That's sustainable if anyone citizenship is granted solely based on being born in the US.

So, aside from attacking Trump (which I do on a regular), or claimed racism, what is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?  

Elimination of stateless individuals, extreme promotion of immigrant assimilation into American society, defending and ensuring the idea that American society should not be based on bloodlines, and promotion of immigration are the ones I came up with in five seconds on another thread.

Posted (edited)

What is Trump's alternative?

There is a laundry list of countries on both sides honestly. Are there countries not successfully using an alternative to jus soli?

Is this his lone answer for immigration reform?

Honestly, if we want to start attacking the Constitution, we need to start with ending Citizens United. Make the modifications needed to overturn it asap.

Edited by pacman
Posted
10 hours ago, bolverk said:

This is what these clowns don't get: For many of us, our beliefs aren't beholden to a specific party. We believe what we believe.

Go ahead and smear Reid (who holds no office). I don't give a shit.

Hypocrisy on the left.  

Posted
22 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

While I don't think it should be done by Executive Order,  I would like to see birthright citizenship go away.  

As a poster mentioned earlier, it was implemented to give citizenship to freed slaves.  I think citizenship should be granted automatically based on the citizenship of the mother, and applied for in all other cases.  I have a nephew who was born in Germany, but he's not a German citizen.  

While racism may be behind the Right's reasoning, getting rid of birthright citizenship isn't an inherently racist position.  In my case it's largely a fiscal one.  

I want universal healthcare and education in the US.  That's sustainable if anyone citizenship is granted solely based on being born in the US.

So, aside from attacking Trump (which I do on a regular), or claimed racism, what is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?  

Yeah, none of the right's opposition to illegal immigration is based upon those same fiscal concerns...

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

While I don't think it should be done by Executive Order,  I would like to see birthright citizenship go away.  

As a poster mentioned earlier, it was implemented to give citizenship to freed slaves.  I think citizenship should be granted automatically based on the citizenship of the mother, and applied for in all other cases.  I have a nephew who was born in Germany, but he's not a German citizen.  

While racism may be behind the Right's reasoning, getting rid of birthright citizenship isn't an inherently racist position.  In my case it's largely a fiscal one.  

I want universal healthcare and education in the US.  That's sustainable if anyone citizenship is granted solely based on being born in the US.

So, aside from attacking Trump (which I do on a regular), or claimed racism, what is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?  

Your logic is here is questionable at best. How do you figure more citizens makes these things less fiscally attainable? You realize that new citizens pay taxes just like old citizens, right? Or would you rather more people be illegal and therefore less likely to pay income tax (although we still obviously collect lots of other taxes even from those who don't pay income tax).

Hell, some of our entitlements wouldn't just continue with an ever-growing population, they actually depend on it just like a ponzi scheme.

Edited by Huckleberry
Posted
21 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Seems to be a problem for those wanting an ethno-state... because in case you didn't know, that's what this is about...kinda.

So if you break US Law by illegally entering this country and give birth to a child we should reward the illegal alien by granting citizenship to the child and by default giving the parent(s) permanent residency?

Stupid  

the people that actually do it the LEGAL way wait years/decades and pay a lot of money are bypassed. They are the ones who will contribute to this society and will not be a drain.    Seems fair to me

 

  • Like 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

How likely is it that this debate will result in amending the constitution? You’re wasting energy on this. 

This right here.  Have your debate, then realize that all the time you spent debating this could've been spent on something that will actually make a difference.

Also, it's all smoke and mirrors for the election.  Crazy racist tweet from the Dotus this morning shoulda toldja.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

And you're welcome to try to amend the Constitution to change that law that is so offensive to you. But you short sided reactionaries who want to amend the Constitution by E.O....be careful what you wish for because the next Dem President might come after your guns that same way. 

Damn Activist Executive Branchers!

Edited by mdmost
  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Your logic is here is questionable at best. How do you figure more citizens makes these things less fiscally attainable? You realize that new citizens pay taxes just like old citizens, right? Or would you rather more people be illegal and therefore less likely to pay income tax (although we still obviously collect lots of other taxes even from those who don't pay income tax).

Hell, some of our entitlements wouldn't just continue with an ever-growing population, they actually depend on it just like a ponzi scheme.

Low income folks get rebates, or negative returns on federal taxes.

You think this caravan of folks approaching the US is gonna walk into $50k/ year jobs and middle class life in the first generation?

Maybe they are.  I'm not quite as optimistic.



×
×
  • Create New...