Jump to content

Birthright Citizenship

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DanRydell

DanRydell 799

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2228

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29693

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4639

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTDD

UTDD 362

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11342

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33010

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7359

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33010

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NameWithHeld

NameWithHeld 101

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17686

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdmost

mdmost 43004

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...