• 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!

Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?


  • Total voters
    60
According to many on the left, anything that negatively effects minorities is racist. I hate it when I find out that when I have hired a minority that every decision that goes against them is deemed racist.
 
According to many on the left, anything that negatively effects minorities is racist. I hate it when I find out that when I have hired a minority that every decision that goes against them is deemed racist.

That is a matter of conditioning, and we see it from politics to higher education where the goal is to ensure people look for the things that divide us far more than any sense of social cohesion.
 
For now, that is the correct interpretation.

All the Federal Government needs now is legislation that requires the individual to purchase a product or service where it can be construed as a tax for not doing so, and it passes by the same idea that Justice Roberts basically made up to ensure ACA stood. On paper, all government penalties handed out to individuals are now equal to a tax. The power to tax then just became the most powerful tool the government has in coercion over the public to do something or buy something at their political whim.

Just wait until this thinking is applied to energy, or education, or transportation, or what you consume.

That is exactly what I would call a fundamental transformation of America. Brought to us by two constitutional scholars, no less.
 
If implemented universally, no, of course not.
 
No. It's not. The question is would ending it be constitutional. I think it would be but there are a lot of people that disagree.
 
No. Why would race have anything to do with it? Ending birthright citizenship would bring the US in line with almost every other country on Earth.

Actually a significant amount of the world has birthright citizenship, especially in the Americas.

As this list demonstrates.
 
The idea that it's acceptable for someone to come to America for the sole purpose of having their baby on American soil and the baby is an automatic citizen is asinine to me.
 
Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

Why, or why not?

Or, would it be a simple and neutral managing of our society?

Please note that this thread is not about whether a Constitutional amendment or simple legislation would be required. There are other threads for that aspect.

I am not sure about racist - but it would be a betrayal of our history and one component that made this nation the greatest in the world.
 
I am not sure about racist - but it would be a betrayal of our history and one component that made this nation the greatest in the world.
I support ending birthright citizenship as a practical matter, but your point here is more fair than the racist angle, IMO.
 
No. It's not. The question is would ending it be constitutional. I think it would be but there are a lot of people that disagree.

It the supreme court went by the author's intent then yes denying birthright citizenship to the children of non-citizens would be constitutional.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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 phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
 
Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

Why, or why not?

Or, would it be a simple and neutral managing of our society?

Please note that this thread is not about whether a Constitutional amendment or simple legislation would be required. There are other threads for that aspect.

It depends on why you want to do it. If your real problem is that you're afraid of a 'minority-majority' America then yes it's racist. If not then it probably isn't.
 
Doesn't say birthright citizenship for those who aren't subject to our jurisdiction, such as those who are here illegaly.

says if you're born here, you're a citizen. don't like it? amend.

Besides, that was written by old white men from the 19th Century, and isn't relevant to today's problems. The Sense Of The Times Is That This Is Important, Now. Just as the 10th Amendment no longer poses a burden, neither does the 14th.

doesn't matter.

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.

that's fairly clear.

Living Document Theory means you get to do whatever you want :)

Also, I think General Welfare requires that we ban unions.

lol

Hey, did you know that a progressive tax code is a violation of the equal treatment inherent in the 14th Amendment? We've got to strike that down.

lol
 
Why did it not mean if you are an adult female then you can vote? ;)

it absolutely does.

Some things were just not assumed by our nine robed umpires and actually needed to be written - is my best guess.

well, in this case, they wrote it, and wrote it clearly. they wrote the fourth amendment clearly, too. unfortunately, that one is dust in the wind.
 
If you noticed I wasn't arguing the text of the amendment, I was reciting it's original intent and reason for existing in the first place.

well, if they meant for it to protect the birthright citizenship of some racial minorities but not others, then they should have put that in there. they didn't. in fact, it's quite the opposite, especially the equal protection part. i'd say that they did it right.
 
Not necessarily. There was a case that didn't address the issues that we face today.

so you read the text of the amendment, right?
 
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

says if you're born here, you're a citizen. don't like it? amend.

What hidebound anti government pro-Somalia conservatives like you fail to understand is that the Constitution was not intended to limit government action, but to encourage us to do what is necessary. General Welfare requires that we strip birthright citizenship. Suggesting that your weird, original-intent view that demands we be governed as though this were the nineteenth century is ridiculous.

Why, if we did that, think of all the government programs we would have to get rid of. No - the Constitution is a living document, subject to the sense of the times and our evolution as a people. We have shifted and evolved on this, and so the Constitution (which, after all, is supposed to be about representative government), follows.


Don't like it? Then lets go back to the pre1930s model where what-the-Constitution-says is more important than what-we-want, and get rid of most of what the Federal Government does.


In the meantime, I've little patience for the same people who claim that original intent doesn't matter when it comes to marriage or social spending suddenly invoking it when it comes to birthright citizenship. You want original intent and actually taking what the Constitution says seriously? No single payer, no free college, no department of education, no medicare, no medicaid... No all the things YOU want, either. You want to bring back original intent and actually enforce the Constitution? That's fine. But don't claim it unless you mean it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

What hidebound anti government pro-Somalia conservatives like you fail to understand is that the Constitution was not intended to limit government action, but to encourage us to do what is necessary. General Welfare requires that we strip birthright citizenship. Suggesting that your weird, original-intent view that demands we be governed as though this were the nineteenth century is ridiculous.

lol

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.

Why, if we did that, think of all the government programs we would have to get rid of. No - the Constitution is a living document, subject to the sense of the times and our evolution as a people. We have shifted and evolved on this, and so the Constitution (which, after all, is supposed to be about representative government), follows.


Don't like it? Then lets go back to the pre1930s model where what-the-Constitution-says is more important than what-we-want, and get rid of most of what the Federal Government does.

yep, back to the poorhouses, when charity was enough to support old people.

:roll:

In the meantime, I've little patience for the same people who claim that original intent doesn't matter when it comes to marriage or social spending suddenly invoking it when it comes to birthright citizenship. You want original intent and actually taking what the Constitution says seriously? No single payer, no free college, no department of education, no medicare, no medicaid... No all the things YOU want, either. You want to bring back original intent and actually enforce the Constitution? That's fine. But don't claim it unless you mean it.

i care what you have patience for less than i care about sportsball. in the meantime,

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.

amend it, or deal with it.
 
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?


I accept your implicit admission of defeat :)

yep, back to the poorhouses, when charity was enough to support old people.

That, or have a State level solution. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

amend it, or deal with it.

I already dealt with it. It says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - excluding illegal aliens as assuredly as it requires gay marriage.
 
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

I accept your implicit admission of defeat :)

what a weaksauce non-argument.

That, or have a State level solution. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.

I already dealt with it. It says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof - excluding illegal aliens as assuredly as it requires gay marriage.

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.

read it again. if you're born here, you're a citizen.
 
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

read it again. if you're born here, you're a citizen.

:shrug: that's the way it may have worked in the nineteenth century, but we aren't in the nineteenth century anymore. A Living Constitution is a Living Constitution for everyone.
 
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

what a weaksauce non-argument.





read it again. if you're born here, you're a citizen.

Not exactly. If you are born to foreign diplomats or enemy combatants you are not a citizen. Congress can pass a law denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and it would probably be tested in the SCOTUS. Unfortunately such a law would never pass congress or go to a president that opposes birthright citizenship. The only candidate that has come out against it is trump. The rest support it.
 
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

:shrug: that's the way it may have worked in the nineteenth century, but we aren't in the nineteenth century anymore. A Living Constitution is a Living Constitution for everyone.

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.

last time i'm posting it. it's clearly written, and it grants birthright citizenship to all. if you don't like it, amend it.
 
Re: Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

Not exactly. If you are born to foreign diplomats or enemy combatants you are not a citizen. Congress can pass a law denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants and it would probably be tested in the SCOTUS. Unfortunately such a law would never pass congress or go to a president that opposes birthright citizenship. The only candidate that has come out against it is trump. The rest support it.

here's what i found about children of diplomats.

Green Card for a Person Born in the United States to a Foreign Diplomat | USCIS

i don't agree that they shouldn't be citizens, but their parents are arguably not subject to US jurisdiction in the same way that undocumented immigrants are. still, if i were a SCOTUS justice, i would vote that any person born here is a citizen under the current text of the fourteenth amendment.
 
Back
Top Bottom