Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ?

Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 9:38:49 AM)
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. "HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship ? "WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country." Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” HERE Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced H.R.140, the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would end the practice by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, S.301. HERE

Lucylastic -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 9:50:27 AM)
its a bloody farce.... NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt... just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic. The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier. DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either.

accublond -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 10:27:18 AM)
Remember... the Republicans are "Pro Life." While you're in the womb, that is. After that... they don't give a sh*t if you go to hell in a haywagon. (And indeed... as their utterances on this topic once again show... they are more than happy to help you get there.)

Lucylastic -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 10:30:30 AM)
heh, dont get me started on their plans for PP and the next session...

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 12:25:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its a bloody farce.... NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt... just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic. The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier. DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either. Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 12:39:10 PM)
quote: Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted. Doesn't the SCOTUS have the authority to say what the constitution means?

cloudboy -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 1:04:45 PM)
Don't worry, in about 12 months or so, we'll have 16 dead carcasses rotting on the road, and the victor will miraculously flip-flop into a moderate centrist. This will PISS OFF THE BASE and confuse the otherwise uneducated electorate. What the Republicans really need is some kind of primary reform to marginalize the highly motivated, irrational, crazies. All they'd have to do is open up their primaries to all voters in every district. As is, these candidates are stuck with all the "special education" voters, and the pandering here necessary to win is beyond ugly.

joether -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 1:19:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. "HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship ? "WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country." Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” HERE Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has introduced H.R.140, the Birthright Citizenship Act, which would end the practice by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, S.301. HERE So basically all of the GOP/TP candidates are 'yes men' for the 1%? Got it..... Its not likely to happen. Getting the ACA into law was tough as shit. And that's just an act of Congress. Doing what Mr. Trump suggests requires an amendment to the US Constitution. An that is an enormously tough task to accomplish. The likelihood of success is 'nil'. But that's not why Mr. Trump is doing it. He's riling up the 'Low Information Voters' in the country. But I dont think its for reasons that those L.I.V. folks are thinking on..... Or the GOP/TP could open a Constitutional Convention and try to push things through there. The problem is its REALLY dicey. Since it allows Democrats to push other amendments forward. Including one that ban firearms from private citizens. Which is why the GOP/TP has not done such a thing yet. Lets just say Mr. Trump had is way, and those born in this country were not automatically US Citizens as per the US Constitution. That would mean the newly born would NOT have the same protections as a US Citizen. And there is an enormous amount of laws, regulations, and situations tied to that concept. By law, we would have to depart that newly born baby outside the United States of America; regardless of the nationality or 'origin of birth' of the parent(s). There is much in the way of infrastructure that would have to be develop. I figure it would take about a 9800+ page document to settle all the legal problems. And I know how many of you failed to read a 159 page Iran Treaty document to know the likelihood of you reading that new law carefully.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 1:49:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted. Doesn't the SCOTUS have the authority to say what the constitution means? Sure seems like it. And, they get to decide if things are applied as intended or as written, too. As long as they are consistent with that last part, I won't complain. At least, I won't complain "too much." lol http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/19/trumps-plan-to-end-birthright-citizenship-isnt-that-crazy/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins SCOTUS ruled in 1884 that John Elk was not a US Citizen, even though he was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial boundaries of the US. Elk failed the "allegiance test." Every illegal immigrant fails the allegiance test. Diplomats who have children in the US do not have US citizenship granted to the newborn for the same reason.

MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 2:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its a bloody farce.... NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt... just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic. The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier. DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either. Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted. .....and yet some now think that legislation is the answer. It isn't and never was. It's like passing a law to end the effects of the 'Citizens' ruling. They can't. The 14th amend. it quite specific on birthright citizenship. My point in the last two posts is that the repubs have gone almost 180 degrees on their policies (even where it concerns EO's) and obviously only since Obama, not before. Even the medical insurance mandate as in the ACA was first brought up by the repubs in 92-93 but oh now under Obama, it must be rescinded.

joether -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 2:33:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its a bloody farce.... NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt... just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic. The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier. DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either. Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted. The GOP/TP screams about Constitutional issues when it serves their political agenda. Often times its at odds with the rest of the nation on how 'We the People' should handle a variety of subjects. Or are you going to tell me the GOP was totally honest on 'prisoner treatment at Guantanamo Bay' in full violation of the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments by the G.W. Bush administration and the Republican/Tea Party controlled Congress. Your argument has holes, one of which I just mentioned. Or of selectively reinterpreting the 2nd on the Heller vs D.C. argument? That was done for political agendas NOT Constitutional Law! Should I keep bringing up examples in which the GOP/TP pushed its political agendas while masquerading as 'defending the Constitution from liberals'? I'm not going to be a hypocrite here either. Yeah, liberals, Democrats and even the current President has done things, and doing things now, that serves the viewpoint with regards to the US Constitution. And we have had discussions on those issues as well. In this manner, the hope, is that the whole of the nation benefits from us learning from our mistakes while not making more of them due to good laws and policy. That it is actually is important to remember and study US History not for 'sacred or holy' reasons but reflection of law as it related to circumstances and reality.

joether -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 2:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted. Doesn't the SCOTUS have the authority to say what the constitution means? Actually it doesn't. It can rule over the interpretation of previous examinations of law and the Constitution. They are not allowed to reinterpret those laws. Nor are the lower courts allowed to do this. Its often interpreted by 'Low Information Voters' as 'activist judges'. The courts are held to the law by both the writing of the law and the spirit to which it was written. Ever notice we have so many issues with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments but not many problems with the last eight on the books? We as a nation got better at defining amendments into reality. We recognize in part, that technology has placed a more greater role in law (the speed of technological changes) than it took place in the late 18th century. However, while technology can change how laws are handled or used; the judges of the nation are beheld to the law itself. The concept of the Supreme Court was to be a bunch of individuals that served for a dozen to sixteen years on the federal bench before retiring or dying. Thanks to medical technology and usage, the age life of senior citizens is much greater in 2015 than in the late 18th century. As such we have individuals on the bench whom were put in place during the George Herbert Walker Bush administration; long before the youngest generation graduating from high school were born! Much of America has changed in that time period. Good and bad.

MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 4:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted. Doesn't the SCOTUS have the authority to say what the constitution means? Actually it doesn't. It can rule over the interpretation of previous examinations of law and the Constitution. They are not allowed to reinterpret those laws. Nor are the lower courts allowed to do this. Its often interpreted by 'Low Information Voters' as 'activist judges'. The courts are held to the law by both the writing of the law and the spirit to which it was written. Ever notice we have so many issues with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments but not many problems with the last eight on the books? We as a nation got better at defining amendments into reality. We recognize in part, that technology has placed a more greater role in law (the speed of technological changes) than it took place in the late 18th century. However, while technology can change how laws are handled or used; the judges of the nation are beheld to the law itself. The concept of the Supreme Court was to be a bunch of individuals that served for a dozen to sixteen years on the federal bench before retiring or dying. Thanks to medical technology and usage, the age life of senior citizens is much greater in 2015 than in the late 18th century. As such we have individuals on the bench whom were put in place during the George Herbert Walker Bush administration; long before the youngest generation graduating from high school were born! Much of America has changed in that time period. Good and bad. Actually that's not true. Ever since Marbury v Madison where the court affirmed as in English law, the highest court of the land rules on the efficacy (constitutionality) of law, what it determines is the law of the land...is. As in ruling people were property and now cash is free speech. The former was the law of the land, the latter...is. The rest of your thread is really either in error or irrelevant to the issue. Ex: There were be lifetime and only 6 judges, then Adams created the lower courts and stacked them with federalists before Jefferson took office. (then teh SCOTUS got seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863) It made it down to 8 but then in 1869 was given 1 to make it 9 as it is today. None of which changes anything.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 6:04:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic its a bloody farce.... NOW they want an amendment made...but have been screaming about ANY part of the constitution being changed, but is what obama has done...he hasnt... just more hilarity on the republican side. If it were not so pathetic. The state of the republican party just keeps getting crazier. DO they want the presidency? Again as in 08, when we thought we had seen crazy, i said, they dont want the responsibility of it....I dont think they want it now either. Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. They may rail at a liberal change to the Constitution via amendment, but the railing will be at the change, and not the method. They accuse the Democrats and the President of changing the Constitution via EO's and/or other non-Amendment methods, and they rail at the changes being attempted. .....and yet some now think that legislation is the answer. It isn't and never was. It's like passing a law to end the effects of the 'Citizens' ruling. They can't. The 14th amend. it quite specific on birthright citizenship. My point in the last two posts is that the repubs have gone almost 180 degrees on their policies (even where it concerns EO's) and obviously only since Obama, not before. Even the medical insurance mandate as in the ACA was first brought up by the repubs in 92-93 but oh now under Obama, it must be rescinded. We agree that it is pretty damn specific about birthright citizenship. We just don't agree on the interpretation. See the 1884 SCOTUS case I've linked to a couple times now. Yes, the mandate was the the 1993 HEART Act. Yes, much of the framework of Obamacare is akin to that same Act. However, there are many differences, some of them huge. For instance, all money spent by business that went towards health care of the employees, was tax deductible by the business. All money spent by individuals for their or their families' health care was also tax deductible by the individuals. There were also no "Cadillac taxes" in the GOP Act. It's utterly amazing how short it is, compared to the ACA.

cloudboy -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 6:15:13 PM)
The term is Obama Derangement Syndrome or ODS. My brother moved to Kentucky from NJ -- and the thinking is so fucked up there that hating Obama is almost a job interview question.... ------- • Republicans thought they had learned a lesson after 2012: Turning off Latino voters ensures defeat in the general election. • A sizable core of Republicans favors such mass deportations, including 43 percent in a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. But that position is out of step with three-fourths of Americans — including 76 percent of independents — who believe illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country if certain conditions are met, according to a Pew Research Center survey in June. And a narrow majority of Republicans favor giving undocumented immigrants a path to legal status or citizenship. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/us/politics/with-tough-immigration-talk-gop-again-risks-losing-latinos.html Chasing the rabid-anti-immigration vote is a losing strategy in the general election. The Republican primary is a suicide walk for Presidential Candidates.

BamaD -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 6:44:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Don't worry, in about 12 months or so, we'll have 16 dead carcasses rotting on the road, and the victor will miraculously flip-flop into a moderate centrist. This will PISS OFF THE BASE and confuse the otherwise uneducated electorate. What the Republicans really need is some kind of primary reform to marginalize the highly motivated, irrational, crazies. All they'd have to do is open up their primaries to all voters in every district. As is, these candidates are stuck with all the "special education" voters, and the pandering here necessary to win is beyond ugly. Not worried, do you think Hillary will start giving interviews in prison?

Thegunnysez -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/19/2015 9:01:10 PM)
quote: SCOTUS ruled in 1884 that John Elk was not a US Citizen, even though he was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial boundaries of the US. Elk failed the "allegiance test." He failed the allegiance test because he was born a native American on a reservation (which has legal technicalities that make it not part of the U.S. All of that was made moot by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-indian-citizenship-act quote: Every illegal immigrant fails the allegiance test. According to the case cited only if born on a "reservation" and had allegiance to that tribe which had a treaty with the U.S.. Giving native Americans the right to vote at that time would be about like letting Isis vote today. Every president from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt echoed the sentiment (popularized by Phillip Sheridan) that "the only good indian is a dead one.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/20/2015 2:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez quote: SCOTUS ruled in 1884 that John Elk was not a US Citizen, even though he was born on an Indian reservation within the territorial boundaries of the US. Elk failed the "allegiance test." He failed the allegiance test because he was born a native American on a reservation (which has legal technicalities that make it not part of the U.S. All of that was made moot by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-indian-citizenship-act quote: Every illegal immigrant fails the allegiance test. According to the case cited only if born on a "reservation" and had allegiance to that tribe which had a treaty with the U.S.. Giving native Americans the right to vote at that time would be about like letting Isis vote today. Every president from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt echoed the sentiment (popularized by Phillip Sheridan) that "the only good indian is a dead one. No, it wasn't that he was born on a reservation, but that he had allegiance other than the US at birth. This is also why foreign diplomat's children born on American soil aren't granted birthright citizenship. They have allegiance other than the US. Illegal immigrants have allegiance to their home countries, not the US. Thus, they, too, fail the allegiance portion of the 14th Amendment.

Thegunnysez -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/20/2015 8:08:11 PM)
quote: Actually, the GOP screams about any part of the Constitution being changed outside of the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. Is it only the GOP that feels this way, is this meant to imply that the other party feels the opposite?

Thegunnysez -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/20/2015 8:23:10 PM)
quote: No, it wasn't that he was born on a reservation, but that he had allegiance other than the US at birth. If we read the whole case we find that because he is a native American, not a U.S. citizen and part of a separate nation(to which he owed allegiance) within the boundaries of the U.S. he has no birthright. The fact that he renounced his tribal citizenship did not matter because he was more than 49% native American and not eligible to be a citizen. Native Americans were not made citizens until 1924. There were exceptions made for exceptional people but they were few and far between. quote: This is also why foreign diplomat's children born on American soil aren't granted birthright citizenship. In addition the foreign diplomat has no intention of staying in the U.S. quote: Illegal immigrants have allegiance to their home countries, not the US. Thus, they, too, fail the allegiance portion of the 14th Amendment. Unlike the diplomat the illegal has no intention of going back to their old country so they have by their very action renounced that allegiance.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875