• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review

FilmFestGuy said:
How about not giving tourist visas to women beyond so-many-months pregnant? I can't imagine that would unconstitutional since they're not citizens.

It doesn't require altering the Constitution to fix the problem of anchor baby tourism.
Click to expand...

A lot of people have five-year, multiple entry visas... Wouldn't work in those cases, and several countries citizens don't even need visas to enter the United States...
 
Crunch said:
Read my post #10..... read all of it..... read it slowly and think about what I wrote.

The 14th amendment in no way, shape, or form admits anchor babies.
Click to expand...

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. 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.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that foreigners in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while they are present on U.S. territory?
 
Chappy said:
Attacking the foundational principle that all people born in the United States of America are full and equal citizens is about as anti-American as it gets in my opinion. I look around and I see a lot of anti-Americans.
Click to expand...

If it were a "foundational principle" then was wasn't this added to the constitution until four score following the its ratification?
 
ludahai said:
If it were a "foundational principle" then was wasn't this added to the constitution until four score following the its ratification?
Click to expand...

I forgive you for being like far too many other hyperbolic conservatives in being so deplorably ignorant of American history. Consider what happened in America some “four score following the [Constitution's] ratification.” Consider why the fourteenth amendment was necessary at all. The enshrinement in our Constitution of the principle that all persons born in this country are full, equal citizens means there is no underclass in America. It wasn't always so. There use to be an underclass; right up until America conducted the most bloody of all its wars. Some conservatives in this country it seems would like to undo some of that history. They are despicable in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
Attacking the foundational principle that all people born in the United States of America are full and equal citizens is about as anti-American as it gets in my opinion. I look around and I see a lot of anti-Americans.
Click to expand...

taking things out of historical context is also anti-American. Try looking up some history regarding the 14th.

"In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Seems there is a case to be made that some have stretched the intent.
 
You are hopelessly misled by conservative flim-flam artists who have absolutely no clue what that language means and don't want to know. Children of foreign emissaries or enemy soldiers were excluded. Vicious conservatives intentionally misread these phrases to mean more people, many more people, maybe some members of your family, maybe you. Yes, let's see if we can find a reason to exclude you, alleged citizen!
 
Chappy said:
IThere use to be an underclass; right up until America conducted the most bloody of all its wars. Some conservatives in this country it seems would like to undo some of that history. They are despicable in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that conservatives want to bring back slavery? :lamo
 
Good for them. It needs to change. Its one on many things we need to do to fix the immigration issue.
 
I've started to really like Lindsey Graham in these past couple of months and here he is again.
 
Chappy said:
You are hopelessly misled by conservative flim-flam artists who have absolutely no clue what that language means and don't want to know. Children of foreign emissaries or enemy soldiers were excluded. Vicious conservatives intentionally misread these phrases to mean more people, many more people, maybe some members of your family, maybe you. Yes, let's see if we can find a reason to exclude you, alleged citizen!
Click to expand...

That's the wonderful thing about our country. We can have honest open debate on issues and nothing needs to change...unless it needs to change. Nothing wrong with hearings.

Perhaps it's time to have the SCOTUS interpret the Fourteenth. Their interpretation is the only one that matters.
 
Chappy said:
I forgive you for being like far too many other hyperbolic conservatives in being so deplorably ignorant of American history. Consider what happened in America some “four score following the [Constitution's] ratification.” Consider why the fourteenth amendment was necessary at all. The enshrinement in our Constitution of the principle that all persons born in this country are full, equal citizens means there is no underclass in America. It wasn't always so. There use to be an underclass; right up until America conducted the most bloody of all its wars. Some conservatives in this country it seems would like to undo some of that history. They are despicable in my eyes.
Click to expand...

The underclass is growing, since the Liberals took over the government.
 
apdst said:
The underclass is growing, since the Liberals took over the government.
Click to expand...

The underclass is growing since incompetent, ideological conservatives ****ed up the economy.
 
Chappy said:
The underclass is growing since incompetent, ideological conservatives ****ed up the economy.
Click to expand...

Democrats have held the key and possession to the limo that drives the economy since 2006. Hows that workin for ya?
 
Chappy said:
The underclass is growing since incompetent, ideological conservatives ****ed up the economy.
Click to expand...

Oh...and look at your California economy...who is in control of legislation there? And how is THAT working out? And damn near every other welfare sta...I mean blue state in the country for that matter...
 
Look, I don't know a college educated person who would clean toilets or clear landscaping
Click to expand...

I did.. And I can tell you, if you need to eat, and or feed your family, you'd do it too. That's the problem with the culture of entitlement. It makes you lazy, and weak minded.

I also picked fruit while going to college. My first ever job was stocking shelves at the Miracle Food Mart (now defunct) in Niagara Falls Canada!

Why you might ask? Why would I stoop so low? Because I was raised to work hard, and taught that nothing is truly free in this world, and if you really, really want something, go out and get it, coz it ain't coming to in some magical fantasy world.

See my point? For you to even make your comment is evidence of this dispicable culture that is now the American society. It's why everyone else is catching us..


Tim-
 
Chappy said:
Attacking the foundational principle that all people born in the United States of America are full and equal citizens is about as anti-American as it gets in my opinion. I look around and I see a lot of anti-Americans.
Click to expand...


That isn't anti-American, it's pro-Constitutional law.
 
ludahai said:
Are you trying to say that foreigners in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. while they are present on U.S. territory?
Click to expand...

Not as far as the definition the authors of the 14th amendment were using for "jurisdiction, no. They were using the idea of "complete jurisdiction".

There is a fundamental principle of Constitutional Law established by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison which indicated that:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”

This has bearing on the interpretation of "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment because "Indians not taxed" and "children of Ambassadors" are nowhere referenced. The absence of these two categories further supports the belief that "jurisdiction" in the 14th is the "full jurisdiction" of allegiance, and not jurisdiction "of law" as misapplied by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark. If the 14th had referenced "children of Ambassadors" and/or children of "Indians not taxed" this would make those references "form without substance" in regard to the interpretation of jurisdiction being that of allegiance, undermining that interpretation.

From another site - http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=77344721&postcount=25773

HISTORIC REFERENCES REGARDING "JURISDICTION":

1866, two years before the 14th Amendment, by U.S. statute Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised defined who is citizen:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power ... are declared to be citizens of the United States"


July 9, 1868: 14th Amendment was ratified

The 1866 Congressional debates confirm that the two citizenship clauses -- the one in the 14th Amendment, and the one in the 1866 Civil Rights Act -- were intended to have the same meaning and effect. During those debates, the primary framers of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull, made it clear that "jurisdiction", as used in the 14th Amendment, means sole and complete U.S. jurisdiction, i.e., not subject to any foreign power:

Sen. Lyman Trumbull: The provision is, that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof." What do we mean by "complete jurisdiction thereof?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob Howard: concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Civil Rights Act of 1866: The very same Congress that drafted the 14th Amendment (two months before the 14th, and recognized in Wong Kim Ark) defined citizenship in the first section:

"all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 112 U.S. 99-103.


1873, Supreme Court (Slaughterhouse Cases) indicated that the U.S.-born children of foreign citizens (incl. legal residents) are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, therefore are not U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment:

'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 phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. (Slaughter-House Cases, 1873)
Click to expand...


You can try to twist the words of the Constitution and the intentions of the authors of the 14th as Justice Gray did in Wong Kim Ark that gave us the "anchor babies", but the words and intentions are plain and easy to see for any that can read and understand simple English.

Hopefully Congress will take this up, and end this unlawful invasion of aliens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chappy said:
I forgive you for being like far too many other hyperbolic conservatives in being so deplorably ignorant of American history.
Click to expand...

:lamo Coming from you, that is hilarious. (see the above for a history lesson.) :roll:
Consider what happened in America some “four score following the [Constitution's] ratification.” Consider why the fourteenth amendment was necessary at all. The enshrinement in our Constitution of the principle that all persons born in this country are full, equal citizens means there is no underclass in America. It wasn't always so. There use to be an underclass; right up until America conducted the most bloody of all its wars. Some conservatives in this country it seems would like to undo some of that history. They are despicable in my eyes.
Click to expand...

The 14th was strictly about making freed slaves citizens, not about giving citizenship to any person that illegally crosses our border…. That came from a justice that couldn’t read plain, simple English.
 
Chappy said:
You are hopelessly misled by conservative flim-flam artists who have absolutely no clue what that language means and don't want to know. Children of foreign emissaries or enemy soldiers were excluded. Vicious conservatives intentionally misread these phrases to mean more people, many more people, maybe some members of your family, maybe you. Yes, let's see if we can find a reason to exclude you, alleged citizen!
Click to expand...

Damn those flim flam artists that wrote the 14th amendment.. just a bunch of vicious conservatives.

When are you going to quit listening to the liberal talking points and start thinking for yourself? You’ve been provided with the authors words and intentions about the 14th, and a few court rulings, yet you spew this crap.
 
Chappy said:
I forgive you for being like far too many other hyperbolic conservatives in being so deplorably ignorant of American history. Consider what happened in America some “four score following the [Constitution's] ratification.” Consider why the fourteenth amendment was necessary at all. The enshrinement in our Constitution of the principle that all persons born in this country are full, equal citizens means there is no underclass in America. It wasn't always so. There use to be an underclass; right up until America conducted the most bloody of all its wars. Some conservatives in this country it seems would like to undo some of that history. They are despicable in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I was in favor or against changing the 14th amendment in this thread. I am in favor of a slight change to the amendment. However, I was merely pointing out that this whole "citizenship by soil" did not become part of the Constitution until after the Civil War... I would favor amending it only to provide that the mother be in the U.S. legally when the child is born for citizenship to be conferred... which is probably not nearly as strict as some conservatives would advocate...
 
Chappy said:
You are hopelessly misled by conservative flim-flam artists who have absolutely no clue what that language means and don't want to know. Children of foreign emissaries or enemy soldiers were excluded. Vicious conservatives intentionally misread these phrases to mean more people, many more people, maybe some members of your family, maybe you. Yes, let's see if we can find a reason to exclude you, alleged citizen!
Click to expand...

Because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Foreigner residents and visitors (legal or not) are subject to the jurisdiction during the time of their presense, thus the 14th amendment DOES make them citizens. PLease don't make blanket statements regarding Conservatives on this issue. I conceed that they are citizens based on the current writing of the constitution from the adoption of the 14th amendment. However, I do favor amending the 14th amendment as previously stated.
 
Crunch said:
"all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 112 U.S. 99-103.
Click to expand...

Do you understand there there are many situations in which the children of foreign nationals residing in the United States would NOT be subject to any foreign power?
 
In this country the sins of the mother are not visited on her child; in America a child enters the world innocent and a full citizen of this country. Can you imagine a twenty five year old who has lived their entire life as an American being told that because it was just discovered that their mother wasn't here legally, something they had no knowledge of or certainly any responsibility for, that they themselves are no longer to be treated as a citizen? It's outrageous and bizarre. Addled brained conservatives (not all conservatives, just the really ****ed up ones) endorse such notions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom