RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ?

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

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/21/2015 1:29:57 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. Is it only the GOP that feels this way, is this meant to imply that the other party feels the opposite? If that's what you want to think, go for it. The comment I responded to was attempting to point out irony or hypocrisy in the GOP because they rail about the Constitution being changed, yet are looking at an amendment to change the Constitution.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/21/2015 1:34:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez 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. Yeah, no. He wasn't granted birthright citizenship not because he was 49% Native American, or because he wasn't born in the US. He was born with allegiance to his tribe first and foremost. Illegal immigrants still owe allegiance to their country of citizenship. Their kids, therefore, owe their allegiance to the same. quote: 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. Their desire to stay or not stay has fuckall to do with anything. Their choice to break Federal immigration law has everything to do with things. They are not here legally. They are not citizens of the US. The 14th Amendment was not intended to apply to children of illegal immigrants.

MercTech -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/21/2015 3:50:35 PM)
There does seem to be a need for clarification of the "Law of the Land" and "law of the Blood" considerations for citizenship. If you are born of citizens; you are a citizen. If you are born of parents resident in the country; you are a citizen. Is being a "resident" of the country the same for someone on a visa for employment in the country, a "resident alien" with a green card and lawfully registered with the State Department, Haitian boat people who manage to get above the high tide mark, or tunnel crawlers across the Mexican border? To legally enter the U.S. for work; a person has to meet some selection criteria. The unskilled often just can't get in legally. No sponsor, no job, no Visa.

JVoV -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/21/2015 5:05:04 PM)
And again, Cubans that make it to American soil cannot be deported. How can we embrace uncontrolled and unsanctioned immigration from one country while demonizing it from another? With diplomatic relations reestablished with Cuba, our immigration policy must change. This cannot be ignored in the conversation.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/21/2015 5:10:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And again, Cubans that make it to American soil cannot be deported. How can we embrace uncontrolled and unsanctioned immigration from one country while demonizing it from another? With diplomatic relations reestablished with Cuba, our immigration policy must change. This cannot be ignored in the conversation. Are you so embedded on the Cuban angle that nothing else can happen without it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/21/2015 5:24:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech There does seem to be a need for clarification of the "Law of the Land" and "law of the Blood" considerations for citizenship. If you are born of citizens; you are a citizen. If you are born of parents resident in the country; you are a citizen. Is being a "resident" of the country the same for someone on a visa for employment in the country, a "resident alien" with a green card and lawfully registered with the State Department, Haitian boat people who manage to get above the high tide mark, or tunnel crawlers across the Mexican border? To legally enter the U.S. for work; a person has to meet some selection criteria. The unskilled often just can't get in legally. No sponsor, no job, no Visa. How's this for a birthright citizenship test? If a newborn's parents are both only US Citizens, the child is a US Citizen. If a newborn's parents hold dual Citizenship, including US Citizenship, the child is a US Citizen or holds dual Citizenship, like the parents, at the parents' choosing. If only one of a newborn's parents is a US Citizen, the newborn is either a US Citizen, a Citizen of the other parent's home country, or holds dual Citizenship, at the parents' choosing. If at least one of a newborn's parents is legally in the US, the newborn is either a US Citizen, a Citizen of the parents' home country, or holds dual Citizenship, at the parents' choosing. If a newborn's parents are not in the US legally, the newborn is a Citizen of the parents' country, and does not hold US Citizenship.

kdsub -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/21/2015 7:43:02 PM)
I agree with Trump on few things…but this is one. We have no need to continue copying British common law. The reason and intent, in my opinion, for this part of the 14 amendment was not to allow illegal aliens to have children and gain welfare benefits and citizenship. There is wording in the amendment that could be interpreted to exclude illegal alien’s children born in the US…without repeal or changing the amendment…There is at least enough ambiguity in the intent and wording of the amendment that the Supreme Court could interpret a law banning the birthright of illegal aliens as constitutional. Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 5:03:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I agree with Trump on few things…but this is one. We have no need to continue copying British common law. The reason and intent, in my opinion, for this part of the 14 amendment was not to allow illegal aliens to have children and gain welfare benefits and citizenship. There is wording in the amendment that could be interpreted to exclude illegal alien’s children born in the US…without repeal or changing the amendment…There is at least enough ambiguity in the intent and wording of the amendment that the Supreme Court could interpret a law banning the birthright of illegal aliens as constitutional. Butch http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

cloudboy -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 5:37:22 PM)
Now conservatives hate the Constitution AND Originalism. Fact: 33% of the US population will never Amend the constitution, and such discussions render a US Presidential Candidate un-electable. The mild equivalent would be a Presidential candidate wanting to Amend the 2nd Amendment to outlaw various firearms. Probably 50-65% of all Americans would support this, but it still wouldn't happen.

cloudboy -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 5:43:26 PM)
There is no such thing as an "anchor baby" b/c its citizenship does not transfer any legal status to its parents until the child becomes 21 years old. People come to the USA for the same reasons they always have -- for freedoms and opportunity. The moment they don't want to come anymore is the moment you should feel unsettled. As Justice Scallia said, "Get over it." This is not changing -- no matter what gymnastics you might try to apply to it. ----------- You may not be aware that the mere birth of a child in North America does not guarantee the child nor their parents the right to live in the United States or Canada, at least not until the child reaches the age of majority. Put another way, the family can be and often is removed from the U.S. or Canada, even if they have a native born child, because they do not have lawful status in the country. Some time in the future, once the child becomes an adult, they will be able to return to the U.S. or Canada, but that is down the road. It does not prevent deportation now. ^^^ To wit there is no "anchor."

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 5:44:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Now conservatives hate the Constitution AND Originalism. Fact: 33% of the US population will never Amend the constitution, and such discussions render a US Presidential Candidate un-electable. The mild equivalent would be a Presidential candidate wanting to Amend the 2nd Amendment to outlaw various firearms. Probably 50-65% of all Americans would support this, but it still wouldn't happen. That all depends on how those 33% are spread around. As a ridiculous hypothetical that has absolutely no way of being true, 5 States contain over 36% of the total US population, so 45 States could still vote for ratification, and the Amendment would pass.

cloudboy -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 5:48:31 PM)
Yes, but as they were spread around in 2012, Romney lost in a landslide with gentler ideas about immigration.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 5:49:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy There is no such thing as an "anchor baby" b/c its citizenship does not transfer any legal status to its parents until the child becomes 21 years old. People come to the USA for the same reasons they always have -- for freedoms and opportunity. The moment they don't want to come anymore is the moment you should feel unsettled. As Justice Scallia said, "Get over it." This is not changing -- no matter what gymnastics you might try to apply to it. Who said I don't want them to come here? Since I want immigration policies to improve, to legally allow more into the country, and to make it easier and faster for foreigners to legally immigrate, how does that in any way, shape, or form, translate into me not wanting people to want to immigrate? My desire for illegal immigration to drop in no way impacts my desire for legal immigration to expand.

cadenas -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 6:18:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez 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. Yeah, no. He wasn't granted birthright citizenship not because he was 49% Native American, or because he wasn't born in the US. He was born with allegiance to his tribe first and foremost. Illegal immigrants still owe allegiance to their country of citizenship. Their kids, therefore, owe their allegiance to the same. That's a misinterpretation of the clause. It's quite simple actually: illegal immigrants can be arrested by US police, and tried in US courts. Thus, they are subject to US jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with allegiance (which is a concept usually only monarchies and dictatorships have in the first place - "owing allegiance" is the difference between a citizen and a subject). In the Elk case, allegiance only mattered because his allegiance made him subject to tribal justice first, and exempt from at least part of the US judicial system. That's still true today, BTW - this is why tribes can operate casinos in states that do not allow gambling. Today, that question is mostly moot. It still does have one impact: tribal members, even today, don't receive their US citizenship through the 14th Amendment, but through an ordinary law, and that could theoretically be repealed without a Constitutional Amendment. Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning that diplomats cannot be arrested within the USA or tried in US courts. In fact, the "under the jurisdiction" clause in the 14th Amendment was specifically created only for diplomats. But anybody who can be arrested by US police and tried in US courts is clearly subject to US jurisdiction - thus, the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship.

BamaD -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 6:23:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And again, Cubans that make it to American soil cannot be deported. How can we embrace uncontrolled and unsanctioned immigration from one country while demonizing it from another? With diplomatic relations reestablished with Cuba, our immigration policy must change. This cannot be ignored in the conversation. But what it has been is not relevant to the conversation. Even if you don't like the rules they operated under, they followed the rules. Illegals ignore the law and can't be rewarded for doing that.

BamaD -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 6:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez 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. Yeah, no. He wasn't granted birthright citizenship not because he was 49% Native American, or because he wasn't born in the US. He was born with allegiance to his tribe first and foremost. Illegal immigrants still owe allegiance to their country of citizenship. Their kids, therefore, owe their allegiance to the same. That's a misinterpretation of the clause. It's quite simple actually: illegal immigrants can be arrested by US police, and tried in US courts. Thus, they are subject to US jurisdiction. It has nothing to do with allegiance (which is a concept usually only monarchies and dictatorships have in the first place - "owing allegiance" is the difference between a citizen and a subject). In the Elk case, allegiance only mattered because his allegiance made him subject to tribal justice first, and exempt from at least part of the US judicial system. That's still true today, BTW - this is why tribes can operate casinos in states that do not allow gambling. Today, that question is mostly moot. It still does have one impact: tribal members, even today, don't receive their US citizenship through the 14th Amendment, but through an ordinary law, and that could theoretically be repealed without a Constitutional Amendment. Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning that diplomats cannot be arrested within the USA or tried in US courts. In fact, the "under the jurisdiction" clause in the 14th Amendment was specifically created only for diplomats. But anybody who can be arrested by US police and tried in US courts is clearly subject to US jurisdiction - thus, the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. If their very presence here is a crime rewarding them with citizenship does seem a bit irrational.

cadenas -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 6:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech There does seem to be a need for clarification of the "Law of the Land" and "law of the Blood" considerations for citizenship. If you are born of citizens; you are a citizen. If you are born of parents resident in the country; you are a citizen. Is being a "resident" of the country the same for someone on a visa for employment in the country, a "resident alien" with a green card and lawfully registered with the State Department, Haitian boat people who manage to get above the high tide mark, or tunnel crawlers across the Mexican border? To legally enter the U.S. for work; a person has to meet some selection criteria. The unskilled often just can't get in legally. No sponsor, no job, no Visa. How's this for a birthright citizenship test? If a newborn's parents are both only US Citizens, the child is a US Citizen. If a newborn's parents hold dual Citizenship, including US Citizenship, the child is a US Citizen or holds dual Citizenship, like the parents, at the parents' choosing. If only one of a newborn's parents is a US Citizen, the newborn is either a US Citizen, a Citizen of the other parent's home country, or holds dual Citizenship, at the parents' choosing. If at least one of a newborn's parents is legally in the US, the newborn is either a US Citizen, a Citizen of the parents' home country, or holds dual Citizenship, at the parents' choosing. If a newborn's parents are not in the US legally, the newborn is a Citizen of the parents' country, and does not hold US Citizenship. First of all, your rules would put us on a par with countries such as Iraq and Kuwait. Birthright citizenship is the standard nearly anywhere in the civilized world; even Germany has finally (at least partially) implemented it after holding on to Hitler's citizenship laws for nearly half a century. I think Japan is still a holdout, but they have a lot of other rules based on racial purity. Also, your rules don't work, because the US has no say in what happens to foreign citizenships. Many countries don't grant citizenship to children born abroad (for instance, children of Indian citizens in the USA will never be Indian citizens). And even if the parents don't want their children to be US citizens, that wouldn't matter - parents aren't allowed to renounce citizenship on behalf of their children. Only the citizen personally can do that, and only after age 18. Your rules also fail in the case of parents without any nationality at all.

cadenas -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 6:34:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If their very presence here is a crime rewarding them with citizenship does seem a bit irrational. That's not what I said, and it would be absurd on its face. It would mean that most US citizens aren't subject to US jurisdiction, either, simply because they never commit a crime. Jurisdiction simply means that if you are accused of a crime, you get to have your day in court in the US judicial system.

dcnovice -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 6:47:20 PM)
FR [:)] [image]https://bobbiblogger.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/stop-the-illegals.jpg[/image]

Sanity -> RE: Birthright citizenship, what's happened to the repubs ? (8/22/2015 6:54:41 PM)
A lot of Mexicans are of Spanish descent (That means theyre Europeans, too) If the invading hordes of illegals want this land, lets see them come up with enough beads and fire water to buy it fair and square, maybe have a war to settle it once and for all

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625