Repubs say they want to end birthright citizenship - bye, bye, 2016 election

[chucky2]

"Interpretation" isn't remotely the same thing as "policy," though you'll get no argument from me that many rulings by the SCOTUS seem to be driven far more by ideology than by the rigorous application of legal principles.

Agreed. But one would hope those dreaming up policy and then making sure some kind of policy is actually followed would at least start with a current interpretation of the law as it stands (which may be very old and enacted for different reasons) and then decide, Does this fit current and future projected Reality any longer? and then, Does leaving it harm our current situation? If the answer is Yes and No, leave it. If the answer is No and No, leave it (it can just sit, no need to change something not hurting us). If the answer is Yes and Yes or No and Yes, then it needs to be addressed.

I'm fine for leaving the 14th in place unchanged, however leaving it as is, is hurting us because a real number of people are coming here dropping babies, intentionally, so they're US Citizens. This isn't in today's day and age how we need to be letting people become US Citizens. At minimum we need a modern re-interpretation of the 14th, with an obvious nod to those currently made US Citzens under it by not nullifying that.

There are many counterproductive American rights and policies that are considered by one side or the other (NEVER both) to be essentially set in stone by the Constitution. So, for example, the same people who seem to think that the 14th Amendment can simply be re-interpreted in a less-immigrant-friendly way by the SCOTUS are the same ones who tell us with an almost religious fervor that any "re-interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment would be the worst sort of judicial activism. Sounds kind of unprincipled to me.

We could re-interpret or reassess the 2nd, I'd be fine with that. The problem is if you take out suicides and poor area violence (which is happening one way or the other, 2nd or no 2nd), our gun violence plummets to levels that are noise floor. Since I'm not going to begrudge someone that wants to end their life, nor do I believe telling criminals that they need to follow the law will make them follow the law, I don't see some country damaging need to re-address the 2nd. But we could (and for the 2nd, it seems it's constantly under attack anyways, so one could say we're already constantly re-addressing it).

 

[fskimospy]

We don't need to reinterpret the 2nd amendment because gun violence isn't bad if you discount poor people because poor person violence can't be stopped?

Lol. Never change, chucky. That's some pure, uncut crazy.

 

[CitizenKain]

Can't answer the question, eh? Can't dispute the facts so pull the straw man? How sad and pathetic. Where did I say in the quote you posted that I am better than others as you claimed? Oh, it is THAN, not THEN. If you are going to bitch about my English, at least learn how to write correctly. Do as you say and not as you do, eh? Moron.

How about this. Que pasa? Chupar mi.... LOL.

Lets see, one mistake vs your entire post history. My bad.

It is funny that you think that somehow immigration laws is keeping someone like the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk out of the country. If people have that talent, and money, they are getting in anyway.

 

[Svnla]

Lets see, one mistake vs your entire post history. My bad.

It is funny that you think that somehow immigration laws is keeping someone like the next Steve Jobs or Elon Musk out of the country. If people have that talent, and money, they are getting in anyway.

One time/one mistake you said? ROTFLMAO. Again, do as you say and not as you do. Goodness, talk about pathetic. Keep digging deeper, dude. Don't like what I wrote, keep walking.

Why should smart people have to wait for years to get in the LEGAL way while hordes and hordes of ILLEGALS can sneak in? Why bother to have immigration laws and rules if we are not going to enforce them? Comprende?

 

[soulcougher73]

One time/one mistake you said? ROTFLMAO. Again, do as you say and not as you do. Goodness, talk about pathetic. Keep digging deeper, dude. Don't like what I wrote, keep walking.

Why should smart people have to wait for years to get in the LEGAL way while hordes and hordes of ILLEGALS can sneak in? Why bother to have immigration laws and rules if we are not going to enforce them? Comprende?

Exactly. If anything all these other immigrants from around the world should learn about the Mexican way. Just fucking come over. No one is going to enforce that you leave, and in a few years you'll get amnesty or shit out some kids. Win/win for criminal activity. 🙂

Gotta love enablers..err i mean the US.

 

[flexy]

"Anchor babies" = our fellow Americans.

Excellent. And of course...true.

 

[VRAMdemon]

LOL!...this thread has brought out the crazy..

There is not going to be an end to birthright citizenship and there won't be any mass deportations. E-verify is likely to happen as part of any immigration bill, same as earned amnesty. The day rich white people start going to jail for taking advantage of illegal labor is the day the problem is solved. A wall might get built, but is a massive waste of money meant to cater to those who want to blame only mexicans for the problem. Mexico will not pay for a single cent of it and there won't be any repercussions. Also end the drug war. Honestly anyone who expects the immigration issue to be solved, better get used to accepting something that looks almost exactly like what passed the senate last time, because that is what it is going to look like.

 

[chucky2]

We don't need to reinterpret the 2nd amendment because gun violence isn't bad if you discount poor people because poor person violence can't be stopped?

Lol. Never change, chucky. That's some pure, uncut crazy.

Nick Nick Nick...there are hundreds of Millions of firearms in the US. People in the poorer areas are committing by far most of the firearm violence in the US, so it stands to reason if we're going to tackle a problem with guns, we tackle that largest problem first. Now, Nick, do you really think if you make guns illegal the people who don't follow the laws anyways are going to go, Wow dawg, dey made dat sh1t illegalz, guess we can't go cap dem GD foolz anymo'? No Nick, they won't. Do you really think they'll be turning them in? No Nick, they won't. Will they magically stop using them? No Nick, they won't.

It is amazingly ironic you're going with the 'never change' 'pure uncut crazy' schtick Nick. Predictable, but, still amazingly ironic. 😀:thumbsup:

 

[K1052]

All this concern for the sanctity of the law is truly touching coming from people who are willing to simply ignore major parts of the constitution in order to accomplish their goals.

 

[chucky2]

Don't think of it as ignoring the constitution, just think of it as re-assessing it. It's not even as bad as redefining words, much less of a change than gay "marriage". I'd think Lefties would be OK with this right?

 

[K1052]

Don't think of it as ignoring the constitution, just think of it as re-assessing it. It's not even as bad as redefining words, much less of a change than gay "marriage". I'd think Lefties would be OK with this right?

So you can't address this without the use of a red herring argument?

Telling.

 

[First]

This is how it works:

Those not included are:

1. persons born in the United States who are foreigners, or

2. persons born in the United States who are aliens, or

3. persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States,

4 Those not listed in #1-3 are citizens by birth.

I.e., you meet just one of the qualification enumerated in #1 to #3 and you're not a citizen by birth.

See the above bolded "or"? You guys are apparently reading it as though the "or" is an "and". I.e., only people who are:

1. foreign/alien AND

2. diplomat or family of diplomat.

are excluded.

Fern

You are woefully confused about Senator Jacob Howard's words, which as others have said aren't even in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Again, Senator Howard said the following in the 1868 debate on the 14th Amendment (previously posted by me here):

The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. ... It will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all person who may happen to be within their jurisdiction. [emphasis added by the U.S. Supreme Court][116]

What in this statement confirms your interpretation of foreigner/alien? Please elaborate.

 

[chucky2]

So you can't address this without the use of a red herring argument?

Telling.

Address what? The year is 2015, but nothing will get done anyways, so we move onto 2016. So we're talking about real problems in 2016 not being addressed because of Amendment that may or may not need deliberation in this day and age because doing so might limit the illegal gravy train?

Maybe I missed it, but, why cannot we look at past legislation and override/tweak/negate it if it doesn't work for current times (with applied future thought)?

 

[First]

That case addresses the children of legal residents. Note that case did not overturn the prior ruling that held the children of recognized Indian tribes are not citizens. The case of illegals falls between those two cases.

At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted there was no concept of illegal v. legal resident, so this really becomes a question of interpretation. Specifically, do we interpret the literal words as broadly as possible and include illegals, or as narrowly as possible? Alternatively, you can try to play the guessing game as to whether the founders would have included illegals I they thought of it.

No. Read:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States, except American Indians, were U.S. citizens. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

He was born to Chinese non-citizen parents.

 

[First]

See my post above about the US needs MORE educated LEGALS and LESS unskilled/uneducate ILLEGALS.

You keep saying the same shit without reading. No one here in this forum and very few Americans are asking for more undocumented to flood in uncontrolled.

I am a LEGAL immigrant that busted my tail to be where I am now. I spent years and years and a small fortune to bring family members here the LEGAL way while the ILLEGALS just ignored all immigration laws and rules and cut the line and people like you are ok with it. Of course, per you, what do I know and understand while you totally understand the situation with statement like this.

You don't know shit, sorry. You keep say only bring in skilled immigrants, but fail to address why all of them need to be highly skilled. Why is that the limiting factor, why can't we bring in average skilled workers too? Won't highly skilled workers displace other highly skilled American born workers here just like low skilled immigrants are supposedly replacing low skilled American born workers here?

Fact:

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2070930,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/...ch-diversity-hiring-women-minorities/9735713/

Yup, let hordes and hordes of unskilled ILLEGALS in while smart, skilled, educated LEGALS are waiting for years in vain. Very smart policy for the 21st century economy there, NOT!!!

Huh? I don't think you understand what you're reading. You seem to indict a whole group of American born children (who happen to be Hispanic) because their test scores are worse than whites? As if test scores prove squat in this debate. What is your point?

 

[fskimospy]

Nick Nick Nick...there are hundreds of Millions of firearms in the US. People in the poorer areas are committing by far most of the firearm violence in the US, so it stands to reason if we're going to tackle a problem with guns, we tackle that largest problem first. Now, Nick, do you really think if you make guns illegal the people who don't follow the laws anyways are going to go, Wow dawg, dey made dat sh1t illegalz, guess we can't go cap dem GD foolz anymo'? No Nick, they won't. Do you really think they'll be turning them in? No Nick, they won't. Will they magically stop using them? No Nick, they won't.

It is amazingly ironic you're going with the 'never change' 'pure uncut crazy' schtick Nick. Predictable, but, still amazingly ironic. 😀:thumbsup:

lol. Please keep posting more things like this. Your lack of self awareness is amazing.

 

[K1052]

Address what? The year is 2015, but nothing will get done anyways, so we move onto 2016. So we're talking about real problems in 2016 not being addressed because of Amendment that may or may not need deliberation in this day and age because doing so might limit the illegal gravy train?

Maybe I missed it, but, why cannot we look at past legislation and override/tweak/negate it if it doesn't work for current times (with applied future thought)?

All that depends on a "reinterpretation" of the 14th Amendment that is directly opposite the Supreme Court's last decision on the issue. Any such attempt to do this legislatively (short of an Amendment) will end up in the federal courts and, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, will be struck down as unconstitutional. Trying to implement blatantly illegal legislation surrenders whatever moral high ground you're trying to preserve.

 

[Chaotic0ne]

I agreed with most of what you said except this bit. That's where you lost me. Democrats are not all retards.. infact the people who vote democratic are probably better informed on issues than republican voters who vote against their self interests.

I'm not biased in attacking either party. I think the people who make up the largest base for both political parties are morons. They don't understand enough about how things work to determine whether or not a policy is good for them or not. That's why politicians use names like "Patriot act" attached to bills designed to spy on US citizens. To put neocon troglodyte logic on display - anyone who opposes the Patriot act hates America. And of course the witless Republican teatard "Go murica" crowd eats that up. The biggest stupor in the Republican Party is the evangelicals. And they're among the dumbest voting base in the USA. They're at least equal in stupidity to most of those people in the link to the video I posted.

Immigration policies when looked at realistically should ebb and flow in good and bad economic times. For example, its not advantageous for our own citizens to have immigration policies designed to displace US citizens from their jobs during bad economic times. What was done to those Disney employees shouldn't even be legal. That's bullshit. The last thing we need is more competition for jobs during bad economic times. As bad as thing are right now there should be almost no H1B visas given out. In booming economic times when there are shortages for skills, that's when we should be giving H1B visas out. Neither party is defending US jobs, they're selling them out to the agendas of the highest campaign donors.

 

[shira]

Nick Nick Nick...there are hundreds of Millions of firearms in the US. People in the poorer areas are committing by far most of the firearm violence in the US, so it stands to reason if we're going to tackle a problem with guns, we tackle that largest problem first. Now, Nick, do you really think if you make guns illegal the people who don't follow the laws anyways are going to go, Wow dawg, dey made dat sh1t illegalz, guess we can't go cap dem GD foolz anymo'? No Nick, they won't. Do you really think they'll be turning them in? No Nick, they won't. Will they magically stop using them? No Nick, they won't.

It is amazingly ironic you're going with the 'never change' 'pure uncut crazy' schtick Nick. Predictable, but, still amazingly ironic. 😀:thumbsup:

You're conflating two distinct issues, (1) the issue of whether there's a need to "re-interpret" the 2nd Amendment to restrict access to firearms, and if so, what that new interpretation should be; and (2) assuming the new interpretation pursuant to (1) is in force, the issue of what to do about firearms that are no longer legal to possess under that new interpretation.

To make an analogy with the question of the citizenship status of the children of illegal immigrants, (1) is analogous to asking if Section 1 of the 14th Amendment needs to be re-interpreted, and if so, what that new interpretation should be; and (2) is analogous to asking what to do about the children of illegals who gained birthright citizenship under the old interpretation, assuming the new interpretation pursuant to (1) is in force.

To put this another way: Arguing that it's "very, very difficult to undo ALL of the damage" caused by a counterproductive Constitutional right isn't a persuasive argument to "just do nothing."

 

[chucky2]

lol. Please keep posting more things like this. Your lack of self awareness is amazing.

Lulz, truly an enlightened post. :thumbsup: I always enjoy you Nick'ing Nick, never keep liking those apples... 😀

 

[chucky2]

All that depends on a "reinterpretation" of the 14th Amendment that is directly opposite the Supreme Court's last decision on the issue. Any such attempt to do this legislatively (short of an Amendment) will end up in the federal courts and, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, will be struck down as unconstitutional. Trying to implement blatantly illegal legislation surrenders whatever moral high ground you're trying to preserve.

Even if the current SC wouldn't hear it/vote it down, they could still pass another Amendment. Not that I think this will happen, Politicians on both sides of the aisle have every incentive to not disrupt the 'poor people coming to America' train. I'm just saying in a perfect world, we don't need people being born here to be an automatic US Citizen anymore. Times change...

 

[Cozarkian]

No. Read:

He was born to Chinese non-citizen parents.

He was born to non-citizen parents who were legally residing in the United States. The case does not involve the child of non-citizens who were illegally residing in the U.S.

 

[fskimospy]

He was born to non-citizen parents who were legally residing in the United States. The case does not involve the child of non-citizens who were illegally residing in the U.S.

Have you read the other legal analysis linked?

 

[chucky2]

You're conflating two distinct issues, (1) the issue of whether there's a need to "re-interpret" the 2nd Amendment to restrict access to firearms, and if so, what that new interpretation should be; and (2) assuming the new interpretation pursuant to (1) is in force, the issue of what to do about firearms that are no longer legal to possess under that new interpretation.

Bah I had a longer reply but it got lost... 🙁 My response was to Nick, not you.

To put this another way: Arguing that it's "very, very difficult to undo ALL of the damage" caused by a counterproductive Constitutional right isn't a persuasive argument to "just do nothing."

My argument isn't to do nothing. My argument is that trusting Politician to pass a bill that this time will deal with the illegal invasion problem properly is LOLinsane. They have "failed" ("" because what they've insured has been happening is exactly what they've put in place to get what they both want under the table) for decades on this. Intentionally "failed". One would have to be a complete fool of epic proportions to actually believe that whatever LOL they've put forth now will actually put a stop to the gravy train of illegals coming over/overstaying visas in perpetuity, along with dropping kids (anchor babies) that get them tied here rather than their home country. When entities such as the Executive and Congress have cooperated between the two branches, and between the two major parties, for Decades to accomplish an illegal invasion, you don't blindly accept that this new legislation they're pushing forth is wowee awesome and wowgeez, this time they're really going to put a stop to the BS.

What you do is let them prove they're genuine this time and actually do something that's already on the books, that takes zero extra legislation, and actually enforce border integrity. Sort of a litmus test to see if they remain intentional traitors, or, if they really are prepared to tackle the issue this time. The Amendment discussion was a perfect world type of thing, I don't for a million years think Congress would ever take it on - not because it doesn't need doing (it should be done), but because Congress is a laughingstock joke of a US Citizen sellout.

 

[First]

He was born to non-citizen parents who were legally residing in the United States. The case does not involve the child of non-citizens who were illegally residing in the U.S.

*facepalm*

You're confused. The non-U.S. citizenship of the parents is what was argued in the 1898 case, not their legal status in the country. Their legal status was irrelevant to the case. Being in the country legally or not as a parent of a child born on U.S. soil doesn't alter the 14th Amendment question of whether the child is an American citizen or not.