• 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

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.
 
In and of itself, no. Motivations for some for and/or against could be, but the switch itself is race agnostic.
 
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.

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.
 
I could be used in terms of racism, but I am unsure ending "birthright citizenship" is inherently racist.

Motivation may be the bigger factor?
 
In and of itself, no. Motivations for some for and/or against could be, but the switch itself is race agnostic.
I detest the phrase "nailed it", but you nailed it, IMO.

I get that some people who would propose this are indeed racist in their motivation, and some who favor something closer to unlimited immigration would use this as a talking point, but the concept itself is not racist.
 
Since the vast majority of nations, regardless of predominant race, do not have birthright citizenship it would seem odd to make such a racial assertion. The 14A was primarily concerned with what to do with legal property that suddenly became legal persons. One is certainly no less of a person simply because they inherit the nationality/citizenship of their parent(s) rather than the land of their birth.
 
Would ending "birthright citizenship" be racist?

it would be unconstitutional, so there's that.
 
How would it be racist? I am guessing this is aimed at Hispanics yet we don't technically all belong to one race. So is it racists against all races?
 
it would be unconstitutional, so there's that.

Sadly, The Constitution is generally ignored in modern politics.
 
Sadly, The Constitution is generally ignored in modern politics.

If something can be related to commerce and/or taxation then it is at least potentially a constitutional (new?) federal power.
 
If something can be related to commerce and/or taxation then it is at least potentially a constitutional (new?) federal power.

Taxation is the most broad power that can be manipulated into just about anything, consider how ACA got by...
 
it would be unconstitutional, so there's that.
Depends if the intent of the amendment which was later interpreted to include birthright citizenship is taken into consideration or not. IIRC it was only to grant citizenship to former slaves born in country. Clearly that need and justification has long passed.
 
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.

This would be yet another glowing example of the Right's habit of doing something which they can claim can't be racist in nature because it doesn't target any particular race or ethnicity, but which they - and everyone else - knows damn well IS targeting nonwhite ethnicities with the aim of supporting white nativism. It's as Reagan's adviser Lee Atwater said:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

What Lee Atwater described is precisely the same thing that the Right wants to do with birthright citizenship - all other ethnicities "get hurt worse than (more-likely-to-vote-Republican) whites". Anyone who claims this isn't exactly what's happening is either incredibly naive...or lying through their teeth.
 
How in the world could it be racist if it was applied to everyone? That's idiotic.
 
Depends if the intent of the amendment which was later interpreted to include birthright citizenship is taken into consideration or not. IIRC it was only to grant citizenship to former slaves born in country. Clearly that need and justification has long passed.

the text of the amendment :

Section 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

fist bolded means that if you're born here, you're a citizen. second bolded means that if you're gay and heterosexuals can get married, then you can get married, too.

good amendment.
 
Taxation is the most broad power that can be manipulated into just about anything, consider how ACA got by...

Yep, that moron (CJ Roberts) invented a new federal power to tax income from all sources based on how it was not later spent. That newest federal power (derived from the 16A?) alone could become a national disaster. Congress can now encourage (mandate?) buying anything and then establish a penalty (simply called a tax) for not buying (enough of?) it.
 

Doesn't say birthright citizenship for those who aren't subject to our jurisdiction, such as those who are here illegaly.

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.

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



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

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.
 
This would be yet another glowing example of the Right's habit of doing something which they can claim can't be racist in nature because it doesn't target any particular race or ethnicity, but which they - and everyone else - knows damn well IS targeting nonwhite ethnicities with the aim of supporting white nativism. It's as Reagan's adviser Lee Atwater said:

 You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

What Lee Atwater described is precisely the same thing that the Right wants to do with birthright citizenship - all other ethnicities "get hurt worse than (more-likely-to-vote-Republican) whites". Anyone who claims this isn't exactly what's happening is either incredibly naive...or lying through their teeth.

I just don't get people like you...

If you are calling people racist without proof... you yourself are the racist.
 
the text of the amendment :



fist bolded means that if you're born here, you're a citizen. second bolded means that if you're gay and heterosexuals can get married, then you can get married, too.

good amendment.

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

Some things were just not assumed by our nine robed umpires and actually needed to be written - is my best guess.
 
Why did it not mean if you are an adult female then you can vote? ;)

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

So...are you of the opinion, then, that only men can vote? Because that's the way it was when the Amendment was passed in 1868. If you do not believe that ONLY men should vote, then you must agree that the Amendment preserved the rights for ALL people, and not just for men.
 
the text of the amendment :



fist bolded means that if you're born here, you're a citizen. second bolded means that if you're gay and heterosexuals can get married, then you can get married, too.

good amendment.

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.
 
So...are you of the opinion, then, that only men can vote? Because that's the way it was when the Amendment was passed in 1868. If you do not believe that ONLY men should vote, then you must agree that the Amendment preserved the rights for ALL people, and not just for men.

Nope, I am of the opinion that letting women vote was not going to be a "natural assumption" of the 14A (1868) intent and thus the 19A (1920) was passed. Think, before you drink - even Koolaid. ;)

Few (if any), even as late as 1920, simply presumed that the 14A granted women the right to vote under the equal protection clause, just as it took many, many more years for the SCOTUS to "discover" that SSM was really and truly intended by the 14A (but oddly not poygamy - them weird folks just aint equal yet).

Strange how the male only draft was (an still is?) deemed so equal. ;)
 
Yep, that moron (CJ Roberts) invented a new federal power to tax income from all sources based on how it was not later spent. That newest federal power (derived from the 16A?) alone could become a national disaster. Congress can now encourage (mandate?) buying anything and then establish a penalty (simply called a tax) for not buying (enough of?) it.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom