Anchor babies and the 14th amendment

2,225 Views | 41 Replies | Last: 14 days ago by Waco1947
LIB,MR BEARS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:56a, 12/9/24
To my knowledge, it's never been argued.

Is this where conservatives suddenly want the constitution to be a living, breathing document? Is this where having strict constitutionalist on the court will hurt conservatives?

Present your arguments.
Reply Quote
1
GrowlTowel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LIB,MR BEARS • 5:40p, 12/9/24
LIB,MR BEARS said:
To my knowledge, it's never been argued.

Is this where conservatives suddenly want the constitution to be a living, breathing document? Is this where having strict constitutionalist on the court will hurt conservatives?

Present your arguments.
It is neither.

The relevant portions of the amendment are: "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. . . . The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The key phrase is and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Giving a definition to what that means is neither strict constructionist nor perceiving the Constitution as a living document.

Congress can interpret that phrase in any legislation it passes and the Courts will have the final say. Both constitutional camps could conceivably arrive at the same conclusion.
Reply Quote
4
TinFoilHatPreacherBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:40p, 12/9/24
People typically don't know about the wording left out by the media. It's clear that citizenship is for people here legally. The ones supporting the non citizen birthright nonsense are the same people that will uneducatedly argue that well "regulated" militia means government regulations.
Reply Quote
6
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LIB,MR BEARS • 10:28p, 12/9/24
LIB,MR BEARS said:
To my knowledge, it's never been argued.

Is this where conservatives suddenly want the constitution to be a living, breathing document? Is this where having strict constitutionalist on the court will hurt conservatives?

Present your arguments.


Well we all know what kind of people the Founding Fathers were envisioning as citizens with the Constitution was created.

They could never have imagined a technological advanced world where say Africans or Chinese could get on a plane and 15hrs later be here and have a child here and it would have entitled the baby to citizenship and the parents to resident status forever.

They quite obviously though immigrants would be Europeans by in large and that the ones who would or could spend the huge amount of money (and risk) to come to North America would be serous settlers looking to become long term generational citizens.



Reply Quote
1
2 edits
ShooterTX
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 7:05a, 12/10/24
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
To my knowledge, it's never been argued.

Is this where conservatives suddenly want the constitution to be a living, breathing document? Is this where having strict constitutionalist on the court will hurt conservatives?

Present your arguments.


Well we all know what kind of people the Founding Fathers were envisioning as citizens with the Constitution was created.

They could never have imagined a technological advanced world where say Africans or Chinese could get on a plane and 15th later be here and have a child here and it would have entitled the baby to citizenship and the parents to resident status.

They quite obviously though immigrants would be Europeans by in large and that the ones who or could spend the huge amount of money (and risk) to come to North America would be serous settlers looking to become long term generational citizens.





You do realize that not a single founding father was alive when the 14th was written, right?

They 14th had nothing to do with immigration. It was created to stop the democrats from claiming that freed slaves were not citizens and therefore couldn't vote or be protected by the constitution or laws. Since the slave trade had ended decades before, the vast majority of the freed slaves were born in America. So the 14th was a way to insure that the democrats couldn't keep them from being a part of America. It was never intended to be used for immigrants or anchor babies.

The 14th has long since served its original purpose, and it should be replaced with a new amendment that is similar to the immigration laws used by the rest of the nation's of the world.
No other nation on the planet grants citizenship just because someone is born within their borders, regardless of how they got there. Example: in Germany you must have lived there legally for 10 years before anewborn can apply for citizenship. Even then, citizenship is a process, not a guarantee.
Reply Quote
5
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:03a, 12/10/24
"The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 to guarantee that formerly enslaved persons and their descendants would not be denied citizenship. It superseded the earlier Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to enslaved people. But while it was being considered, lawmakers debated exactly who would be affected by the amendment.

Sen. Jacob Howard, R-Mich., stated the amendment was not written to give citizenship to 'persons born in the United States who are foreigners [or] aliens.'

'This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdictions, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States," Howard said. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.'"

Here are a couple of articles.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

Kristen Welker's Question To Trump About Birthright Citizenship Completely Misses The Point
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShooterTX • 8:08a, 12/10/24
ShooterTX said:
No other nation on the planet grants citizenship just because someone is born within their borders, regardless of how they got there. Example: in Germany you must have lived there legally for 10 years before anewborn can apply for citizenship. Even then, citizenship is a process, not a guarantee.


Although I think we should absolutely end the practice here in the United States, we are far from the only country that does it.



(Dark Blue) Jus soli without restrictions
(Light Blue) Jus soli with restriction
(Lighter Blue) Jus soli Abolished
(Gray) No jus soli

By the way, if you're an American 20 or 30 something couple consider traveling to Argentina or Uruguay and having your anchor baby there. The medical care is equal to what you would have here, and free dual citizenship at the time of birth is a once in a lifetime opportunity for your child. The Argentine passport is quite strong, and Patagonia is fantastic.
Reply Quote
2
4 edits
Coke Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:28a, 12/10/24
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.
Reply Quote
3
LIB,MR BEARS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Redbrickbear • 8:55a, 12/10/24
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
To my knowledge, it's never been argued.

Is this where conservatives suddenly want the constitution to be a living, breathing document? Is this where having strict constitutionalist on the court will hurt conservatives?

Present your arguments.


Well we all know what kind of people the Founding Fathers were envisioning as citizens with the Constitution was created.

They could never have imagined a technological advanced world where say Africans or Chinese could get on a plane and 15th later be here and have a child here and it would have entitled the baby to citizenship and the parents to resident status.

They quite obviously though immigrants would be Europeans by in large and that the ones who or could spend the huge amount of money (and risk) to come to North America would be serous settlers looking to become long term generational citizens.




So, living, breathing document?
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LIB,MR BEARS • 9:14a, 12/10/24
LIB,MR BEARS said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
To my knowledge, it's never been argued.

Is this where conservatives suddenly want the constitution to be a living, breathing document? Is this where having strict constitutionalist on the court will hurt conservatives?

Present your arguments.


Well we all know what kind of people the Founding Fathers were envisioning as citizens with the Constitution was created.

They could never have imagined a technological advanced world where say Africans or Chinese could get on a plane and 15th later be here and have a child here and it would have entitled the baby to citizenship and the parents to resident status.

They quite obviously though immigrants would be Europeans by in large and that the ones who or could spend the huge amount of money (and risk) to come to North America would be serous settlers looking to become long term generational citizens.




So, living, breathing document?
granting illegal immigrants the right of birth right citizenship is certainly the innovation to our Constitutional law


[Birthright citizenship automatically grants U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. At least 5 million individuals in the USA have received birthright citizenship but should not have. This practice is due to a misapplication of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the interpretation of the language "subject to the jurisdiction."


Legislative history makes no mention of illegal immigrants being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Proponents of birthright citizenship often point to the 1898 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case dealt with the children of lawful permanent residents, not illegal immigrants.
The president doesn't need Congress to end this practice. He could issue an executive order instructing federal agencies to issue passports and other government documents and benefits only to those individuals whose status as U.S. citizens meets this requirement...]


https://www.heritage.org/border-security/commentary/end-birthright-citizenship-illegal-families
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:16a, 12/10/24
US v Wong Kim Ark has held that people born here are citizens regardless of their parent's citizenship.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShooterTX • 9:19a, 12/10/24
ShooterTX said:
Redbrickbear said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
To my knowledge, it's never been argued.

Is this where conservatives suddenly want the constitution to be a living, breathing document? Is this where having strict constitutionalist on the court will hurt conservatives?

Present your arguments.


Well we all know what kind of people the Founding Fathers were envisioning as citizens with the Constitution was created.

They could never have imagined a technological advanced world where say Africans or Chinese could get on a plane and 15th later be here and have a child here and it would have entitled the baby to citizenship and the parents to resident status.

They quite obviously though immigrants would be Europeans by in large and that the ones who or could spend the huge amount of money (and risk) to come to North America would be serous settlers looking to become long term generational citizens.





You do realize that not a single founding father was alive when the 14th was written, right?

They 14th had nothing to do with immigration. It was created to stop the democrats from claiming that freed slaves were not citizens and therefore couldn't vote or be protected by the constitution or laws. Since the slave trade had ended decades before, the vast majority of the freed slaves were born in America. So the 14th was a way to insure that the democrats couldn't keep them from being a part of America. It was never intended to be used for immigrants or anchor babies.


True....


"I am not prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls & vote with me."
-Sen. Howard (Radical R-MI, supporting the 14th amendment in Congress)
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 9:27a, 12/10/24
Mitch Blood Green said:
US v Wong Kim Ark has held that people born here are citizens regardless of their parent's citizenship.

[Proponents of birthright citizenship often point to the 1898 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case dealt with the children of lawful permanent residents, not illegal immigrants.]

Mr. Wong Kim Ark had been born in San Francisco to legal immigrant parents.

Not illegal immigrants
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
LIB,MR BEARS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52a, 12/10/24
What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Coke Bear • 10:43a, 12/10/24
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.

This is a completely fair and rational position.

The counter argument is always racism. If you dont allow people to come to your country and steal all your ****, destroy your culture, and erase your history.... you are racist.
Reply Quote
5
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to LIB,MR BEARS • 2:05p, 12/10/24
LIB,MR BEARS said:
What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?


They were not legal or illegal as the concept didn't exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

What you (Trump) is suggesting is we change the long standing belief that being born here makes you a citizen.


Does that mean Baron has to go?
Reply Quote
2
Waco1947
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Coke Bear • 2:40p, 12/10/24
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.
I know that shoe store
Waco1947 ,la
Reply Quote
2
Waco1947
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 2:46p, 12/10/24
The_barBEARian said:
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.

This is a completely fair and rational position.

The counter argument is always racism. If you dont allow people to come to your country and
steal all your ****, Racist/invalid opinion
destroy your culture, Racist/invalid
and erase your history.... you are racist. The words are yours.
Those verbs - steal, destroy, erase - indicate a lack of any facts to your comments. The lack of facts and the absurd conclusions you shared make the post racist.
Waco1947 ,la
Reply Quote
LIB,MR BEARS
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 4:06p, 12/10/24
Mitch Blood Green said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?


They were not legal or illegal as the concept didn't exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

What you (Trump) is suggesting is we change the long standing belief that being born here makes you a citizen.


Does that mean Baron has to go?


I'm suggesting nothing. I'm bringing up the irony of liberals wanting a strict interpretation of the writing of the 14th and conservatives wanting a looser interpretation. Those are opposing positions to what would normally be the case.

Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist. I also don't like the "anchor baby" way of granting citizenship to kids of illegals. In this situation, I don't think I get it both ways.

If we can interpret legal jurisdiction here, what prevents them from interpreting militia differently in a 2A case.

If you want a clear law/amendment, write a clear law/amendment.
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:10p, 12/10/24
Reply Quote
1
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:31p, 12/10/24
Reply Quote
1
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Waco1947 • 6:09p, 12/10/24
Waco1947 said:
The_barBEARian said:
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.

This is a completely fair and rational position.

The counter argument is always racism. If you dont allow people to come to your country and
steal all your ****, Racist/invalid opinion
destroy your culture, Racist/invalid
and erase your history.... you are racist. The words are yours.
Those verbs - steal, destroy, erase - indicate a lack of any facts to your comments. The lack of facts and the absurd conclusions you shared make the post racist.


It didn't bother me if you or anyone else thinks I am racist
Reply Quote
Tempus Edax Rerum
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:19p, 12/10/24
With falling birthrates, I welcome immigration, if done right.
Reply Quote
Redbrickbear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tempus Edax Rerum • 6:38p, 12/10/24
Tempus Edax Rerum said:
With falling birthrates, I welcome immigration, if done right.


I also don't mind a reasonable level of immigration

But no reason to let millions of people enter the country illegally and then give their children a citizenship award for being born here illegally

I also wished the government would prioritize the birth rate crisis
Reply Quote
4
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Coke Bear • 7:17p, 12/10/24
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.
Why wasn't it time to end it when your ancestors came? Like the current migrants, they just came, put up a shingle, and became citizens and small business owners. No one questioned their kids' citizenship.
Reply Quote
2
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 7:36p, 12/10/24
The_barBEARian said:
Waco1947 said:
The_barBEARian said:
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.

This is a completely fair and rational position.

The counter argument is always racism. If you dont allow people to come to your country and
steal all your ****, Racist/invalid opinion
destroy your culture, Racist/invalid
and erase your history.... you are racist. The words are yours.
Those verbs - steal, destroy, erase - indicate a lack of any facts to your comments. The lack of facts and the absurd conclusions you shared make the post racist.


It didn't bother me if you or anyone else thinks I am racist
I'd just like to see evidence Waco thinks at all.

Reply Quote
2
GrowlTowel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Waco1947 • 8:14p, 12/10/24
Waco1947 said:
The_barBEARian said:
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.

This is a completely fair and rational position.

The counter argument is always racism. If you dont allow people to come to your country and
steal all your ****, Racist/invalid opinion
destroy your culture, Racist/invalid
and erase your history.... you are racist. The words are yours.
Those verbs - steal, destroy, erase - indicate a lack of any facts to your comments. The lack of facts and the absurd conclusions you shared make the post racist.

Exhibit A.

Waco 47 would have us bankrupt the country to avoid the label of racism. But what if the people we are allowing in to avoid the racism label are themselves racists?
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:49p, 12/10/24
While I don't have a problem with the current situation, because whether a child's parents are here for this reason or that, anyone who spends their entire life here is basically American... I have no issue with this, though I do think the states need to pass a new amendment either way.

As long as the path towards citizenship is clear and fair, it is not a problem for me. The only issue is when citizenship is a political football that immigrants get whiplashed by. Legal or not, they deserve a clear path, and clear laws.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Coke Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 9:56p, 12/10/24
My great grandparents came through the port, LEGALLY (like all the other immigrants then), obtained citizenship, and were not a burden on society that took hand outs. They established businesses and provided jobs for men in the community which supported a multigenerational family.

Todays immigration in not like that at all.

I am all in favor of revamping today's immigration policies to make it easier for people to enter and become citizens.

There's a distinguished professor at Baylor, who is here on a work visa. He's been here more than a decade. His wife, trained as a nurse, and daughter have just now got their work visas so that they can legally get jobs in this country.

It's ridiculous that it took him more than a decade and probably $20,000 in sponsorship so that he could get these rights when others are given them when they come in illegally.

I do, thank you for your comments so that I could flush this out even further.

I'm open to any other objections so that I can learn.
Reply Quote
5
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 2:30a, 12/11/24
Mitch Blood Green said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?


They were not legal or illegal as the concept didn't exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

What you (Trump) is suggesting is we change the long standing belief that being born here makes you a citizen.


Does that mean Baron has to go?


What we are suggesting is that the kids of people who break into a toy store don't get to keep the proceeds of the burglary.

Basic common sense.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Mitch Blood Green
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 4:34a, 12/11/24
Realitybites said:
Mitch Blood Green said:
LIB,MR BEARS said:
What other cases has SCOTUS interpreted "subject to legal jurisdiction"?

If there are multiple cases, is there consistency in the interpretation?


They were not legal or illegal as the concept didn't exist until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

What you (Trump) is suggesting is we change the long standing belief that being born here makes you a citizen.


Does that mean Baron has to go?


What we are suggesting is that the kids of people who break into a toy store don't get to keep the proceeds of the burglary.

Basic common sense.


I'm suggesting that a guy who broke into a toy store 2007 not have his kids born in 2015 punished for his crime before they were born.
Reply Quote
3
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mitch Blood Green • 7:00a, 12/11/24
Mitch Blood Green said:

I'm suggesting that a guy who broke into a toy store 2007 not have his kids born in 2015 punished for his crime before they were born.


No, what you're suggesting is that setting up a trust fund with ill gotten gains should be a way to protect them from recovery. You're the resident leftist, along with Waco. It's natural that you put the wants of illegal aliens above the rights of citizens and legal immigrants as they are your voting block.

Trying to put lipstick on that particular pig doesn't hide its porcine nature.

(Also, I'm not necessarily advocating stripping people who already were given US citizenship under this flawed application of the 14th by our legal and administrative state of that citizenship and making them stateless if that would be the case. But all first generation illegals and anchor babies with dual citizenship must go.)
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 8:13a, 12/11/24
Realitybites said:
Mitch Blood Green said:

I'm suggesting that a guy who broke into a toy store 2007 not have his kids born in 2015 punished for his crime before they were born.


No, what you're suggesting is that setting up a trust fund with ill gotten gains should be a way to protect them from recovery. You're the resident leftist, along with Waco. It's natural that you put the wants of illegal aliens above the rights of citizens and legal immigrants as they are your voting block.

Trying to put lipstick on that particular pig doesn't hide its porcine nature.

(Also, I'm not necessarily advocating stripping people who already were given US citizenship under this flawed application of the 14th by our legal and administrative state of that citizenship and making them stateless if that would be the case. But all first generation illegals and anchor babies with dual citizenship must go.)


I'm ok making them stateless and kicking their asses into Mexico... it probably won't happen... but a man can dream.

We shouldn't have to suffer because 200 years ago they had to kill half the country in a civil war to write a poorly worded law
Reply Quote
4
Waco1947
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 1:19p, 12/11/24
The_barBEARian said:
Waco1947 said:
The_barBEARian said:
Coke Bear said:
I've mentally debated this for quite some time. I love the fact that our country was founded and built by immigrants. It's the American dream, to come here and make something of yourself based on hard work.

On my dad's side, I'm only 3rd generation American. My great grandparents came over from Sicily in the early 1900's thru the Port of New Orleans. They made it to Waco and opened a 5 and dime store downtown and leather and shoe repair store on 18th. We're very proud of Italian heritage, but deeply patriotic Americans. My grandfather and two great uncles served in WWII. One of my great uncles was a belly-gunner in a B-17 and was shot down and perished. The other one inherited the leather and shoe repair store after the war.

Having said all that, it is time to end birth-right citizenship unless one of the parents is a citizen or naturalized citizen.

I'm happy to listen to any argument supported the opposite view.

This is a completely fair and rational position.

The counter argument is always racism. If you dont allow people to come to your country and
steal all your ****, Racist/invalid opinion
destroy your culture, Racist/invalid
and erase your history.... you are racist. The words are yours.
Those verbs - steal, destroy, erase - indicate a lack of any facts to your comments. The lack of facts and the absurd conclusions you shared make the post racist.


It didn't bother me if you or anyone else thinks I am racist The words are yours not mine
Waco1947 ,la
Reply Quote
Waco1947
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 1:22p, 12/11/24
Realitybites said:
Mitch Blood Green said:

I'm suggesting that a guy who broke into a toy store 2007 not have his kids born in 2015 punished for his crime before they were born.


You're the resident leftist, along with Waco. It's natural that you put the wants of illegal aliens above the rights of citizens and legal immigrants as they are your voting block. All resident people in the USA live under our Constitution and laws and rights. I do not put theirs rights above yours.

Waco1947 ,la
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.