My comment was also a joke, hence my use of a quote by Ronald Reagan when he was debating Walter Mondale "there you go again".   :thumbsup:

 

It didn't strike a nerve, but I'm tired of people labeling the republican party as "old southern white men" among other things.  I fit two of the words that liberals tend to use to describe republicans.  I am "old" by some people's standards and I am a man.  I don't consider myself southern and I'm not white.

I consider myself thoroughly wooshed. 

---

I consider myself thoroughly wooshed. 

 

That's OK my liberal friend.  It happens.   :thumbsup:

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

As soon as I read your question I knew exactly where you are going with this.   :thumbsup:   I do disagree with your statement that "republicans think this is a good idea" though.  Some my think that, but not all.

 

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jagibelieve" data-cid="518824" data-time="1439927246">
<div>
As soon as I read your question I knew exactly where you are going with this.   :thumbsup:   I do disagree with your statement that "republicans think this is a good idea" though.  Some my think that, but not all.

 

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

We can't decide which parts of The Constitution we should enforce and which parts we should not.

 

We can't decide which parts of The Constitution we should enforce and which parts we should not.

</div>
</blockquote>
 

I am not now and never have been a constitutional lawyer, but at the same time i know that the constitutional protection of free speech still doesn't allow you to scream bomb on a plane and the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that you wouldn't have to comply with background checks or registration requirements.  In that vein and given the plain text of the amendment i think that if you had a bill that simply directed that parents here illegally don't qualify as being under the jurisdiction there of and had a hearing or a review of their legal status as part of determining the status of the child you would comply with the fundamental directive of due process and you would be using the text of the 14th amendment not repealing it.

---

I am not now and never have been a constitutional lawyer, but at the same time i know that the constitutional protection of free speech still doesn't allow you to scream bomb on a plane and the right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean that you wouldn't have to comply with background checks or registration requirements.  In that vein and given the plain text of the amendment i think that if you had a bill that simply directed that parents here illegally don't qualify as being under the jurisdiction there of and had a hearing or a review of their legal status as part of determining the status of the child you would comply with the fundamental directive of due process and you would be using the text of the 14th amendment not repealing it.

 

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that, but the 14th Amendment is pretty clear.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The part i highlighted in red.

---

The part i highlighted in red.

 

I get you.  Would you consider being in the United States subject to the laws of the country?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The part i highlighted in red.

So your argument is that the US should renounce all legal authority, including the ability to enforce its laws, over infants born here in order to keep them from being citizens? I can see that going really well. 18 years later:

 

"I was born to illegal parents and the US renounced its jurisdiction over me, so I'm allowed to kill people."

---

I think a better way of saying it is that: if subject to the jurisdiction of this country a child would not have been born in this country then we shouldn't have to confer citizenship to said child in the same vein if his parents were here within the myriad of legal statuses.  

---

I think a better way of saying it is that: if subject to the jurisdiction of this country a child would not have been born in this country then we shouldn't have to confer citizenship to said child in the same vein if his parents were here within the myriad of legal statuses.  

You can only twist the meaning of the Constitution so far before you've turned the thing upside down.

 

No legislation to eliminate birthright citizenship would ever hold up in court. The Fourteenth Amendment, plain as day, guarantees it. The only way to eliminate birthright citizenship is another amendment, and I sincerely doubt you'd find enough states willing to ratify an amendment based upon xenophobia and racism to push it through.

---

You can only twist the meaning of the Constitution so far before you've turned the thing upside down.

 

No legislation to eliminate birthright citizenship would ever hold up in court. The Fourteenth Amendment, plain as day, guarantees it. The only way to eliminate birthright citizenship is another amendment, and I sincerely doubt you'd find enough states willing to ratify an amendment based upon xenophobia and racism to push it through.

 

Which race are you referring to?


 

And xenophobia is better than Zenophobia*.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*the fear of never reaching one's destination.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Which race are you referring to?

Do I really have to answer that question? Nobody wants an amendment overturning birthright citizenship to stop those dastardly Canucks from procreating on our soil.

---

Do I really have to answer that question? Nobody wants an amendment overturning birthright citizenship to stop those dastardly Canucks from procreating on our soil.

Illegal immigration is hardly exclusive to one race. The point being made is birth right citizenship should be to children born with at least one parent legally residing or a citizen of the home nation.


Not granting citizenship based soley on birth right to offspring of illegal residents doesn't change our ability to enforce laws. They're mere presence is illegal so in your example the 18 year old would still be guilty of illegal residence, in addition to crimes against citizens.

---

Not granting citizenship based soley on birth right to offspring of illegal residents doesn't change our ability to enforce laws. They're mere presence is illegal so in your example the 18 year old would still be guilty of illegal residence, in addition to crimes against citizens.

The plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment says that the US would have to abandon its jurisdiction (and therefore legal authority) over a person born in the US to prevent them from becoming a citizen. This would put that person completely outside the law, and no government entity could Constitutionally apply American laws to them.

---

The plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment says that the US would have to abandon its jurisdiction (and therefore legal authority) over a person born in the US to prevent them from becoming a citizen. This would put that person completely outside the law, and no government entity could Constitutionally apply American laws to them.

I don't see how, non citizens are still subject to our law while on US soil.

---

No it doesn't and that's not the argument that i was making.  

 

As an analogy, when a team is fielding a punt, should a member of the returning team touches the ball after its kicked and passes the line of scrimmage the ball is live.  However, if the member of the receiving team was blocked into the ball then its like he never touched it.  

 

The argument that i put forth wouldn't overturn, in whole, the concept of birthright citizenship as put forth in the 14th amendment.  My argument is that if the geographical location of the birth as set forth in the amendment is, in and of itself, a violation of the laws of the jurisdiction of the united states, because of the illegal status of the parents, then the geographical location should not confer citizenship to the child.

 

In other words, if the very act of the parents being in the country is a crime, then we shouldn't be rewarding criminal behavior.  

 

As to xenophobia or racism you're better than that. You can make your case without implying that anyone who holds an antithetical position is riding around in their white hoods.  

 

In order to have a country you have to have sovereignty and part of that sovereignty is controlling the flow of people in and out of the country.  If its your position that we should have an unlimited amount of legal immigration to the country but monitored, then that's fine.  I may disagree but i could respect the argument.  At current what we have is anarchy, and that's the real surrender of US jurisdiction. 

---

Just saw Trump on Oriely.  As i expected, he is not talking about repealing the 14th amendment or replacing it.  What he's talking about is a legal challenge to the interpretation of the 14th amendment as it relates to kids born to parents who were here illegally to start with. 

---

Do I really have to answer that question? Nobody wants an amendment overturning birthright citizenship to stop those dastardly Canucks from procreating on our soil.

Whoa whoa says Ted Cruz

---

Blakes Life Matters

I would keep the 14th Amendment and just alter immigration laws in a way that would prevent parents from deriving citizenship from an anchor baby. Its not the baby's fault where it was born, but parents certainly shouldn't be able to cheat the system - essentially by fraud.

---

Illegal immigration is hardly exclusive to one race. The point being made is birth right citizenship should be to children born with at least one parent legally residing or a citizen of the home nation.


Not granting citizenship based soley on birth right to offspring of illegal residents doesn't change our ability to enforce laws. They're mere presence is illegal so in your example the 18 year old would still be guilty of illegal residence, in addition to crimes against citizens.

It isn't illegal to be an illegal in this country. It is illegal to cross without inspection or by fraud, but its a one time crime. The state of existing here isn't actually a crime, however.


Children of illegals aren't in violation of any laws for being born and raised in the US.


My problem isn't with the children being born as much as their anchor status. You would see a decrease if parents could no longer derive status from their children if the children derived their citizenship in such a manner.

---

I would keep the 14th Amendment and just alter immigration laws in a way that would prevent parents from deriving citizenship from an anchor baby. Its not the baby's fault where it was born, but parents certainly shouldn't be able to cheat the system - essentially by fraud.

This would basically be my take on the situation. The child is a US citizen, plain and simple, but the parents are not here legally. Their choice should be simple: return to where they came from with their child, who will be free to remain in America with a guardian here legally or return home with the parents and be free to return to the US via legal channels any time they choose.

 

And yes, this is legislation rooted in xenophobia and (sometimes) racism. Not everyone who wants to build a Berlin wall is a xenophobe or racist, but the politicians who are spewing the idea of ending birthright citizenship are certainly making an effort to appeal to those crowds.

---