• 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?

  • Yes, it would be racist.

    Votes: 9 15.0%

  • No, it would be a simple managing of our society.

    Votes: 46 76.7%

  • Not sure, I still haven't decided yet.

    Votes: 5 8.3%
  • Total voters
    60
Helix said:
oh, FFS, they aren't "invaders." if so, then Tyson needs to be seized and prosecuted along with Big Ag and probably at least 50% of independent restaurants. interestingly, it's the exact situation that the amendment was written to address : the agricultural industry didn't want to pay workers good wages to farm, so they brought in slaves. the fourteenth amendment makes sure that their kids are considered citizens and not deported.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes it black and white for people here legally on temp visa or worker's permits or whatever we call it when an immigrant comes here who was invited. But, what about those who came uninvited?
 
calamity said:
I guess that makes it black and white for people here legally on temp visa or worker's permits or whatever we call it when an immigrant comes here who was invited. But, what about those who came uninvited?
Click to expand...

if they had kids here, those kids are citizens.
 
Helix said:
if they had kids here, those kids are citizens.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the language makes it arguable. They did not say specifically an occupying army or an invading one. They simply said invaders. And a horde of uninvited guests showing up for my Super Bowl party are definitely invaders. So, why can't it also be argued that the people swarming across our borders illegally are as well?
 
calamity said:
Unfortunately the language makes it arguable. They did not say specifically an occupying army or an invading one. They simply said invaders. And a horde of uninvited guests showing up for my Super Bowl party are definitely invaders. So, why can't it also be argued that the people swarming across our borders illegally are as well?
Click to expand...

not really. here's the language :

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...

the kids are citizens until it's amended or ignored.
 
Helix said:
if a kid born here commits a crime, is that kid subject to the jurisdiction of the state?

answer : yes.

sorry. if you want to kick out people who were born here, you'll either have to amend or ignore the text of the amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, as I wrote, all people present in the United States are subject to its laws. No real need to repeat what I have already written.

As I stated, the interesting question, which may be the basis for legislative relief, is what was intended by the caveat. Did they mean "subject to the laws", or "able to pledge sole allegiance to the United States"?

As it is, the Supreme Court has determined anyone born here is automatically a citizen. It has not been asked to rule on the issue of the caveat itself, or at least the angle many are looking into to close this birthright loophole.
 
Helix said:
not really. here's the language :



the kids are citizens until it's amended or ignored.
Click to expand...

There is one gray area.

The phrase of art "subject to the jurisdiction" did not exclude any "citizen of a foreign nation", unless acting at the direction or instigation of that foreign nation, making one a state actor. Consent to enter by an immigration official makes the entrant "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This was emphasized in the case of Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) (noting in its recitation of the facts that despite the fact father was not a citizen of the United States, he had children who were "natural-born citizens of the United States"), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1132, 103 S. Ct. 3112 (1983). However, those who enter without official consent are presumptively "invaders" for this purpose, and their children would not be natural-born citizens if the fact of unlawful entry can be established.

Presidential Eligibility
Click to expand...
 
ocean515 said:
Yes, as I wrote, all people present in the United States are subject to its laws. No real need to repeat what I have already written.

As I stated, the interesting question, which may be the basis for legislative relief, is what was intended by the caveat. Did they mean "subject to the laws", or "able to pledge sole allegiance to the United States"?

As it is, the Supreme Court has determined anyone born here is automatically a citizen. It has not been asked to rule on the issue of the caveat itself, or at least the angle many are looking into to close this birthright loophole.
Click to expand...

apparently, i need to post the amendment again.

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...

so, i'm missing the part where it says "able to pledge sole allegiance to the United States."
 
clownboy said:
No, that doesn't address anything. It's just the forum equivalent of you holding your hands over your ears and chanting how right you are over and over again. :lamo
Click to expand...

no, i have been posting the amendment, and it doesn't allow you to deport American born Latinos.
 
calamity said:
There is one gray area.
Click to expand...


not really.

jurisdiction: an overview

One of the most fundamental questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken down into three components:

whether there is jurisdiction over the person (in personam),
whether there is jurisdiction over the subject matter, or res (in rem), and
whether there is jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction
Click to expand...
 
Helix said:
no, i have been posting the amendment, and it doesn't allow you to deport American born Latinos.
Click to expand...

And you continue to misunderstand that text every time you post it.
 
clownboy said:
And you continue to misunderstand that text every time you post it.
Click to expand...

incorrect. if you don't like the text of the amendment, you should be working to change it.
 
Helix said:
apparently, i need to post the amendment again.



so, i'm missing the part where it says "able to pledge sole allegiance to the United States."
Click to expand...

There is no need to post it again. It should be evident I am quite familiar with it.

What you're missing is the willingness to consider that what you wrote about allegience is what the authors of the 14th amendment intended. It would seem that will remain missing, so I have nothing more to add.

Have a good day.
 
ocean515 said:
There is no need to post it again. It should be evident I am quite familiar with it.

What you're missing is the willingness to consider that what you wrote about allegience is what the authors of the 14th amendment intended. It would seem that will remain missing, so I have nothing more to add.

Have a good day.
Click to expand...

and what you're missing is that regardless of intent, they didn't put anything into the actual amendment that permits the deportation of US born Latinos.

hope that you have a good one, as well.
 
Helix said:
incorrect. the text of the amendment says that if you're born here, you're a citizen. how's that amendment drive going?
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual. The text says exactly what the Framers of the 14th says it means.
 
Helix said:
not really.
Click to expand...

If the parents are found to be "invaders," then their offspring can be denied citizenship. This has not yet been challenged. I bet I know which way Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will decide. Roberts and Kennedy are unknown. The last three will agree with you.
 
calamity said:
If the parents are found to be "invaders," then their offspring can be denied citizenship. This has not yet been challenged. I bet I know which way Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will decide. Roberts and Kennedy are unknown. The last three will agree with you.
Click to expand...

"invaders," my ass. the agricultural, restaurant, and landscaping economies run on "invaders," then.

their kids are citizens if they are born here. it's as simple as that. don't like it? amend.
 
Helix said:
"invaders," my ass. the agricultural, restaurant, and landscaping economies run on "invaders," then.

their kids are citizens if they are born here. it's as simple as that. don't like it? amend.
Click to expand...

Ironically I do like it. I just see a loophole that the anti-anchor folks can use.
 
calamity said:
Ironically I do like it. I just see a loophole that the anti-anchor folks can use.
Click to expand...

i don't really care about them one way or the other. pretty much every new wave of immigrants gets established via the melting pot, and then they rage about the next wave. same thing will probably happen with the current Central American immigrants once they've been here here long enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom