• 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!

Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship

In an ideal USA the immigration policies, government paralyzation and inaction, and bigoted nativists don’t help fabricate millions of said criminals.

Im not sure how thats relavent to the idea of citizenship being inherited.
 
No, youre just being vague. My not claiming that is an implication of what desire?
:roll:

The citizenship rules you support, if in place (and should have been in place, or were in place, if you believe the Constitution reads that way) would imply that Blacks born in the mid-late 1800’s shouldn’t have been US citizens because their parents were not. There would remain to this day millions of people in this country that were not citizens because of that. Several generations, with no ‘home’ country to be deported to.
 
Last edited:
Im not sure how thats relavent to the idea of citizenship being inherited.
It has to do with lollipops and rainbows and whiskey springs trickling down Big Rock Candy Mountain and other ‘ideal’ situations. Do we deport and revoke citizenship for jaywalking? EDIT: Well the deporting would be really, really tough since there is not really anyplace to send such people to.

EDIT: 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?
 
Last edited:
Unless there's a proposed Amendment to the Constitution, it can't fly. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment has historically been jus solis.
 
No, I am not claiming that.

But do you see how it would it would have been a consequence? IF there had been no birthright citizenship and the requirement had been to be born of US citizen parents, then any Black born in the US to Black parents would not have been a US citizen. And so their children would not be either etc. That's the whole reason the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Ammendment instituted clear birthright citizenship. In fact, the main reason for the 14th Ammendment was to prevent an overturn of the CRA of 1866 (which overcame a veto by President Johnson).
 
In an ideal USA, every citizen has obeyed the law and contributed to the administration of the union, through various means. That is the citizenship contract with the union.

That's not possible if you are granting birthright citizenship to those who are born to citizens. Your claims about the ideal USA are mutually exclusive ones.
 
220px-Carnac.jpg


Karnack sees Latino voter suppression on the horizon.:2wave:

karnack sees Liberal aholism and lies on the rise...
 
:roll:

The citizenship rules you support, if in place (and should have been in place, or were in place, if you believe the Constitution reads that way) would imply that Blacks born in the mid-late 1800’s shouldn’t have been US citizens because their parents were not. There would remain to this day millions of people in this country that were not citizens because of that. Several generations, with no ‘home’ country to be deported to.

Blacks born in the mid 1800s weren't citizens, or did you forget about the whole 3/5ths a person and slavery thing? A little later any black man who was willing to serve in the Northern Army was granted citizenship. Still later all black folk were granted citizenship as a group. So no, your scenerio doesn't comport with reality.
 
Still later all black folk were granted citizenship as a group. So no, your scenerio doesn't comport with reality.
They were granted it via the 14th Amendment. My scenario only fails to comport due to what it borrows from jonny5’s world view, which is the point.
 
Last edited:
[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]Updated at 1:40 p.m. ET with a correction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]WOW! this'l sure shore up the Hispanic vote for the midterms.[/FONT]
:2wave:


<Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a leading conservative voice on immigration issues, introduced a bill on Wednesday to end the practice of birthright citizenship.>

<It's generally thought that the 14th Amendment provides a constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the United States -- known as "birthright citizenship" -- but King told Hotsheet last year that he does not interpret the 14th Amendment that way.>

<Meanwhile, holding Washington's feet to the fire on the issue, Republican state lawmakers from five states came to the capitol Wednesday to unveil their ownstate-driven plan to curtail birthright citizenship. The lawmakers said that legislation addressing the issue will be introduced in 14 states, though they expect it to be immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional.>


Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

King is wasting taxpayer money to get attention from the bigots who voted him into office.

The bill is clearly unconstitutional. What a freaking idiot.
 
Blacks born in the mid 1800s weren't citizens, or did you forget about the whole 3/5ths a person
the 3/5ths clause only applied to slaves, not all Blacks and had nothing to do with citizenship.

A little later any black man who was willing to serve in the Northern Army was granted citizenship.
I'd have to see evidence for that since it would have violated the Dred Scott decision.
Still later all black folk were granted citizenship as a group. So no, your scenerio doesn't comport with reality.
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then protected by the 14th Ammendment. Civil Rights Act of 1866:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States
14th Ammendment
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
So they were made citizens under the concept of birthright citizenship.

So if Birthright Citizenship had NOT been enacted, then no person of African Descent would have been made a citizen, and then their children would not have been, etc.
 
:roll:

The citizenship rules you support, if in place (and should have been in place, or were in place, if you believe the Constitution reads that way) would imply that Blacks born in the mid-late 1800’s shouldn’t have been US citizens because their parents were not. There would remain to this day millions of people in this country that were not citizens because of that. Several generations, with no ‘home’ country to be deported to.

:roll:

I do not suggest making the change retroactive to 1787. Does that clear it up?
 
It has to do with lollipops and rainbows and whiskey springs trickling down Big Rock Candy Mountain and other ‘ideal’ situations. Do we deport and revoke citizenship for jaywalking? EDIT: Well the deporting would be really, really tough since there is not really anyplace to send such people to.

EDIT: 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?

No, that does not constitute an ideal world for me. Nor do we deport people for jaywalking, or revoke citizenship in any case except declaring new loyalties.
 
They were granted it via the 14th Amendment. My scenario only fails to comport due to what it borrows from jonny5’s world view, which is the point.

Its not my world view. Its your assumption of my world view.
 
No, that does not constitute an ideal world for me. Nor do we deport people for jaywalking, or revoke citizenship in any case except declaring new loyalties.
Then you are talking at cross purposes with yourself and do not understand the implications of your position.
 
But do you see how it would it would have been a consequence? IF there had been no birthright citizenship and the requirement had been to be born of US citizen parents, then any Black born in the US to Black parents would not have been a US citizen. And so their children would not be either etc. That's the whole reason the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Ammendment instituted clear birthright citizenship. In fact, the main reason for the 14th Ammendment was to prevent an overturn of the CRA of 1866 (which overcame a veto by President Johnson).

If you made the change back then, and did nothing else. But that is not what I proposed.
 
:roll:

I do not suggest making the change retroactive to 1787. Does that clear it up?
No, it does not clear it up, if by “it” you are referring to your self-contradiction.
 
Im talking cross purposes with your assumption.
Not my assumptions, the natural, logical outcome of your position and of your ‘ideal’ about being law abiding.
 
No, it does not clear it up, if by “it” you are referring to your self-contradiction.

Sigh, I will explain it to you.

jonny5 said:
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.

I was speaking in present tense, not past tense. I do not beleive this should have been in the original constitution, everything else being equal. I propose we make this change now and apply to future births.
 
If you made the change back then, and did nothing else. But that is not what I proposed.

Your exact quote was
You shouldnt be a citizen simply for being born on US soil. You should be born to a US citizen.
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.

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.
 
Not my assumptions, the natural, logical outcome of your position and of your ‘ideal’ about being law abiding.

The ideal discussion is a differnt one. You have been discussing a hypothetical change to the constitution in 1787 about birthright, wheras the ideal discussion was a totally seperate topic about earning citizenship.
 
Your exact quote was 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.

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.

No, the exafct quote was:

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.

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.
 
Sigh, I will explain it to you.

I was speaking in present tense, not past tense. I do not beleive this should have been in the original constitution, everything else being equal. I propose we make this change now and apply to future births.
The tense does not matter one iota for this:
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?

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom