View Poll Results: Should the 14th Amendment be changed or repealed

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, the 14th amendment should not be touched

    34 55.74%
  • Yes, it should be changed to only give citizenship if the mother is legally in the U.S.

    4 6.56%
  • Yes, it should be changed to only give citizenship if one parent is a U.S. citizen

    15 24.59%
  • Yes, it should be completely repealed

    3 4.92%
  • Other, please explain in the thread

    5 8.20%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    I have already addressed this in a previous post.
    Hmm i guess I missed it

  2. #62
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crunch View Post
    You have it backwards...... legal residents haven't broken any laws to be here, therefore they are under the jurisdiction of the US government if a child is born on US soil. Illegal alien invaders have done something illegal to be here, and in no way can be considered under the jurisdiction of the US government if a child is born on US soil.

    Think of it this way.. Illegal aliens are hiding from the fed. If we don’t even know they are here, how can we have jurisdiction over them?

    PS. I’m not sure I like the idea of children of legal resident aliens getting automatic citizenship. I think at least one parent should be a citizen before a child gets citizenship….. Jus sanguinis
    is a law of nature, jus soli is just geography.
    If they aren't under US jurisdiction, they can't possibly be illegal.

    There is a paradox inherent in your argument which invalidates it.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #63
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Citizenship in most nations, ours included, is not earned. It is a privilege automatically extended to the families that belong to the nation. We allow foreigners to earn that privilege because we are a nation of immigrants and we believe that immigration makes our nation stronger. We're under no obligation to do this.
    Neither here nor there with regards to my call for a demonstration, as my call for a demonstration had nothing to do with foreigners.

    Also, in our country, the privilege is automatically extended to individuals born in the county, not "families that belong to the nation". Let's be precise and accurate.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 08-08-10 at 03:58 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  4. #64
    Educator hallam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Last Seen
    10-23-15 @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    620

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    When the 14th Amendment was written, there were no restrictions on immigration. Come one, come all. Things have changed. I don't see this happening, but I think it's a discussion that ought to take place to let the Administration know just how unhappy Americans are with the fact that illegal immigration isn't being effectively (or seriously) enforced.
    Even if our restrictions on immigration have changed over the years which I am not disputing, that is a moot point. These infants are not immigrants;they are not illegal; nor are they under the jurisdiction of any other country. They are just US citizens born on US soil.

    I agree that immigration laws should be enforced with the full force. I would also agree that the administration should listen to us when we say that this issue is important and should be address without amnesty. However, these are two different issues. I am talking about "anchor babies" and how they pertain to the 14th. You are talking about actively stripping US citizens of their citizenship because you simply don't like the situation around how their parents came here. I see a difference between the situation of the parent and the citizenship of the child. These children are not anchor babies, they are just US citizens. I liken (and take) this change to the 14th as saying all African-Americans are not citizens because we know they came from Africa and we should now send them back there. Where does this line of thinking end? It doesn't; it just makes citizenship dependent on what a majority want or what a minority can rig in an election. You don't like that these babies are citizens, okay. But your dislike doesn't make them any less born citizens of the United States of America.
    Last edited by hallam; 08-08-10 at 05:19 PM.

  5. #65
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    Even if our restrictions on immigration have changed over the years which I am not disputing, that is a moot point. These infants are not immigrants;they are not illegal; nor are they under the jurisdiction of any other country. They are just US citizens born on US soil.

    I agree that immigration laws should be enforced with the full force. I would also agree that the administration should listen to us when we say that this issue is important and should be address without amnesty. However, these are two different issues. I am talking about "anchor babies" and how they pertain to the 14th. You are talking about actively stripping US citizens of their citizenship because you simply don't like the situation around how their parents came here. I see a difference between the situation of the parent and the citizenship of the child. These children are not anchor babies, they are just US citizens. I liken (and take) this change to the 14th as saying all African-Americans are not citizens because we know they came from Africa and we should now send them back there. Where does this line of thinking end? It doesn't; it just makes citizenship dependent on what a majority want or what a minority can rig in an election. You don't like that these babies are citizens, okay. But your dislike doesn't make them any less born citizens of the United States of America.
    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    Even if our restrictions on immigration have changed over the years which I am not disputing, that is a moot point. These infants are not immigrants;they are not illegal; nor are they under the jurisdiction of any other country. They are just US citizens born on US soil.

    I agree that immigration laws should be enforced with the full force. I would also agree that the administration should listen to us when we say that this issue is important and should be address without amnesty. However, these are two different issues. I am talking about "anchor babies" and how they pertain to the 14th. You are talking about actively stripping US citizens of their citizenship because you simply don't like the situation around how their parents came here. I see a difference between the situation of the parent and the citizenship of the child. These children are not anchor babies, they are just US citizens. I liken (and take) this change to the 14th as saying all African-Americans are not citizens because we know they came from Africa and we should now send them back there. Where does this line of thinking end? It doesn't; it just makes citizenship dependent on what a majority want or what a minority can rig in an election. You don't like that these babies are citizens, okay. But your dislike doesn't make them any less born citizens of the United States of America.
    Hallam, you're assuming I've taken a stand on this issue. I haven't. I'm not sure where I come down on it. My opinion is, as I posted, "I think it's a discussion that ought to take place to let the Administration know just how unhappy Americans are with the fact that illegal immigration isn't being effectively (or seriously) enforced." If you read over my few posts, you'll see I never said they shouldn't be citizens.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  6. #66
    Educator hallam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Philly
    Last Seen
    10-23-15 @ 09:44 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    620

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Hallam, you're assuming I've taken a stand on this issue. I haven't. I'm not sure where I come down on it. My opinion is, as I posted, "I think it's a discussion that ought to take place to let the Administration know just how unhappy Americans are with the fact that illegal immigration isn't being effectively (or seriously) enforced." If you read over my few posts, you'll see I never said they shouldn't be citizens.
    And I don't think that discussion should be had since I don't like the idea of rejecting citizenship on people who are clearly citizens. Again, I make a distinction between illegal immigrants who are not citizens and talking about removing citizenship. I am okay with having a outright fight to discuss removing illegal immigrants. But again, i see that as a separate issue. If you want to have a discussion on if the 14th amendment can be rewritten/reinterpreted to make these babies as non-citizens, then, then as I said before, you are misapplying your frustration and anger(?) at the failure to enforce immigration laws on lawful citizens who by nature can not defend themselves. This 14th amendment conversation which shouldn't be allowed at all costs.
    Last edited by hallam; 08-08-10 at 06:31 PM.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    No need to Amend the Constitution.

    The Birthright Citizenship clause was written to stop Democrats in the South from disenfranchising blacks. All that is necessary is the interpretation of the clause as it was orginally intended, to prevent political powers from denying citizenship to those lawfully here. Under no circumstances can it be condidered a blank authority for any alien who spawns on our side of the border to be given immunity from deportation on the basis of their spawn, or to grant citizenship to the spawn itself.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    I'm with you on this one,... as it will inevitably bring the definition of "personhood" to the (Roberts led) SCOTUS and that will certainly go a long way towards ending the legality of elective abortion.
    As much as I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment already implies the illegality of the murder of the unborn person, writing the following will not affect that particular debate:

    Birthright citizenship shall be granted to persons born in the United States if and only if the parents lawfully wedded and one of the two parents is a lawful citizen of the United States prior to the conception of the child. Under no circumstances will citizenship or even legal residence status be granted to any child born to a mother whose presence in the United States is a violation of current immigration law. No person shown to have entered the United States illegally at any time shall be granted citizenship, any citizen found to have entered illegally and fraudulenty obtained naturalization shall have their naturalization revoked. No person shall have dual citizenship.

    What this means is that the children of servicemen who married aliens shall not be denied citizenship.

    Lawful wives of Americans can enter the United States lawfully, hence their children will not be denied citizenship. Women claiming to be knocked up by gringos in a Tijuana whorehouse are out of luck, and no one entering the US illegally will be granted the prize of citizenship.

    No amnesty for illegals, ever.

    And people have to make a choice, to be either a citizen of the United States, or a citizen of some other country. If they don't want to give up their former allegiences, then they're not ready to join our club.

    It's as simple as that.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrunkenAsparagus View Post
    I understand changing or repealing anchor baby laws to punish the parents, but why punish the child for the actions of their parents by withholding citizenship?
    No one's punishing the child.

    Citizenship should never be a gift for someone else's criminal act. The invader spawn doesn't belong here, isn't supposed to be here, and it serves merely to prevent the deportation of the invader itself and to allow the invader to leech public services that shouldn't be applied to anyone, anyway.

    Recognizing that the spawn was never anything more than a citizen of it's parent's source nation is merely common sense.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by hallam View Post
    The 14th should not change at all. Babies born in the US from illegal immigrants should be automatically considered US citizens.
    Why?

    People who commit crimes should reap the reward of their evil actions?

    This entire country is built on premises like the sins of the father don't translate to the son.
    That's okay, we're discussing the sins of the mother.

    No reason she should be rewarded for her crime, either.

    Meanwhile, citizenship is granted to babies of parents lawfully in the United States because their parents are citizens. It's not complicated. The kid has brown eyes because mommy has brown eyes, it has US citizenship because it's mommy has US citizenship.

    The baby has done nothing; has committed no crime...The parents have broken the law and they can be sent home but there is no reason to punish the child.
    Exactly. So when we deport it's mother, it would be a crime to seperate the family simply because the child was wrongly granted citizenship it's parents didn't earn for it.

    Even if those parents take the child home with them, that child should still be considered a US citizen.
    Why? It's not like we're having problems breeding our own citizens. Hell, we even have a national industry of public schools that produce hordes of unskilled uneducated kiddies who can't speak English. Since we don't have a shortage, we don't need to import any.

    Or at least have dual citizenship until age 18 and then the option to pick one citizenship at that age.
    Or, better yet, send them, along with their parent, back to the country they're supposed to be in, and if the child wishes to emigrate from there to the US when he's older, he can get at the back of the line at the US embassy in that nation, just like everyone else, and fill out the forms and wait for our generosity.

    The parent, being formerly illegal, should never be granted any form of visa at any time for any reason whatsoever.

    To systematically reject these babies as non-citizens spits in the face of what it means to be an American.
    No, they're non-citizens. So there's no conflict with being an American and sending non-citizens back to their nation of origin.

    Being "American" does not mean being "gullible", "stupid", "soft-headed", "soft-hearted", "ignorant", "foolish", "easy", or "simple".

    It says that we have rejected the ideals of the country that accepts all legal comers (again, the baby has broken no laws).
    The baby was not a legal entry.

    If you insist that it was, please point to the approved immigration application the pregnant mother filled out prior to entering the United States.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •