Page 112 of 112 FirstFirst ... 1262102110111112
Results 1,111 to 1,115 of 1115

Thread: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

  1. #1111
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    10,641

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    When someone swears allegiance, until proven otherwise, we take their swearing in at face value. There is really no other way to do it.
    On the practical level, you are 100% correct, and will remain correct until the government is in possession of mind reading devices. At that point there will no longer be any need to worry about "allegiance" (or anything else that the government doesn't want you to think about either for that matter).

    And, of course, since "The Government" would be able, through those mind reading devices, to tell what the majority (or plurality) of the people actually wanted, there wouldn't be any need for time wasting and expensive PR shows like "elections" or "legislatures" or any of that other stuff - would there?

    However, you must admit that a significant portion of the American polity is completely ready to determine what other people believe based on anything other than the place of origin of those people. To grant that they are correct, is __[fill in the blank]__.

  2. #1112
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    10,641

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    True, but Constitutional amendments in the current age of polarized politics, such a thing is quite unlikely.
    Gosh, what a wonderful argument in support of "There is a legal, but difficult, way to do 'X' and a non-legal, but easy, way to do 'X', THEREFORE the **C*O*R*R*E*C*T** way to do 'X' is to do it the non-legal, but easy, way (BESIDES, if I try to do it the legal, but difficult, way I might lose and that would make me feel bad which would decrease my personal feeling of self-worth and I have a constitutional right not to be made to feel bad).".

  3. #1113
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    10,641

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by SLC View Post
    The second amendment has already been adjudicated in SCOTUS. Did you know Native Americans were not granted birthright citizenship until by an Act of Congress they were granted it in 1924 by the Snyder Act. The 14th did not apply to them because they owe their allegiance to Indian Nations and not the United States. That is just like the child of two Guatemalans that child owes its allegiance to Guatemala not the United States. I'm sure the President's EO will be challenge but the SCOTUS may just rule in his favor.
    Please learn the difference between "allegiance" and "jurisdiction".

    The 14th "did not apply" to Native Americans for two reasons

    1. they were (notionally) NOT under the "jurisdiction" of the government of the United States of America; and
    2. the average American (primarily "White" at the time) did NOT WANT it to apply to "those dirty Indians".


    The same argument is being used by "conservatives" with respect to anyone who is born in a country other than the United States of America (where that country and person are not "White" - of course).

  4. #1114
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,565

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    Not quite.

    What the actual wording means that if one is a "citizen" of one "state" then they are also a "citizen" of the "nation".

    If your contention that "If one is a citizen of one state, then he is a citizen of all states." were correct, they you could bus a couple of million people from California to some other state so that they could vote in that state's elections.

    You can't - can you?

    You can, in principle, if you are within the law of that state ( which is usually a residency requirement being met).


    So, the fact that if you go to another state and you haven't resided their long enough for the residency requirement, this still does not conflict with the overall principle.


    See, the law is applied equally, given that you have met the residency requirement in the state you live in.
    "He's in love and we're all gonna die" --- Randy Rainbow
    https://www.debatepolitics.com/parti...post1069790679

  5. #1115
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    10,641

    Re: [W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    You can, in principle, if you are within the law of that state ( which is usually a residency requirement being met).
    Which, in effect, has a difference from "Any "person" who has "resided" within the State of __[fill in the blank]__ is, without further application, automatically a "citizen" of the State of __[fill in the blank]__." - how? (NOTE - "All words set out in quotation marks shall have the specific meaning set out in "Section 1 - Definitions" of this Act.")

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    So, the fact that if you go to another state and you haven't resided their long enough for the residency requirement, this still does not conflict with the overall principle.
    Indeed it doesn't. The "overall principle" is that the "state" has the legal authority and constitutional right to define, for itself what constitutes a "citizen" of the "state" and, if - for State purposes only - a State chooses to restrict "State citizenship" using some arbitrary criteria, then the "State" has the legal ability and constitutional right to do so.

    While it could be quite a stretch to go this far, it would also appear that a State would have the right to define "people of the State" to mean ONLY "citizens of the State

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    See, the law is applied equally, given that you have met the residency requirement in the state you live in.
    The "kicker" isn't in the equality of application, it's in the actual wording of the law.

    The American laws respecting slavery were "applied equally", it's just that very few "White" people qualified as "Negros" and very few "Negros" qualified as "White".

Posting Permissions

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