You did not propose anything else. So if your proposal had been accepted back then, the consequence would have been that those of African descent would not have been US citizens. Remember the ONLY way Blacks at that time became citizens was through birthright citizenship, which you are stating should not be valid.You shouldnt be a citizen simply for being born on US soil. You should be born to a US citizen.
If you have an actual argument instead of simple denial, please present it. "..that is not what I proposed" does not clarify what you are proposing. And it certainly appears that it is what you did propose as you offered no other path to citizenship.
Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
I was referring to Kings bill. And everytime I answer, deny, and clarifly your implications and assumptions, you tell me I dont mean what I say. Not really sure where we can go from here. If you have an actual argument about making Kings change in the present, please present it.This seems like a pretty common sense amendment, which is how it should be proposed, not as a simple law. You shouldnt be a citizen simply for being born on US soil. You should be born to a US citizen.
Further, the principles of your stand are indeed at cross purposes with that past tense AND/OR the Constitution. How do you propose reconciliation of that, then?The real kicker, someone is born a ‘criminal’ without thought or intent or action other than just being. This constitutes an ideal world for you?
Your actual answer to my question would be another, saddening problem. But I guess we already got to that place earlier in the thread, and you are just another data point that this is really about enacting a legally entrenched, hereditary class system. Which puts you at odds with a lot more than the 14th Amendment.
Last edited by Dwight; 01-11-13 at 02:13 PM.