• 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!

State lawmakers taking aim at amendment granting birthright citizenship

apdst said:
How much money is spent on entitelment programs, because of the 1st and 2nd Amendments?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see conservative principles with regards to the constitution something that I pick and choose when I want to apply them based on when its convient to me politically, economically, etc.

The mass shootings you reference happened in gun free zones. What good did the law restricting guns do?
Click to expand...

What mass shootings was I referencing? I was thinking going out to a gun range and firing a few clips from an automatic weapon. Where the **** are you getting me talking about shootings in a gun free zone?

How many of these illegal aliens that are now anchored down with a kid are we going to pay for?
Click to expand...

Unfortunantly, as many as get born here and do nothing but suck off of the government tit. And that's going to be the case until we:

1. Improve immigration across the board with regards to security, enforcement, temporary entry laws, etc

2. Reform the entitlement programs that they use

3. Pass a constitutional amendment

4. Manage to argue the point before the courts and get the Supreme Court to rule that your interpritation is the correct one.

Doing an unconstitutional end around simply because some think its quicker and easier is not an acceptable option to me. ****ting upon conservative principle in the name of conservative ideals is counter productive and violates the very nature of labeling oneself as principled, a staunch conservative, or a defender of that political belief system. If your principles only matter up to the point where they're problematic to you then you're anything but principled. You don't do unconstitutional end arounds because you dislike the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Sorry, I don't see conservative principles with regards to the constitution something that I pick and choose when I want to apply them based on when its convient to me politically, economically, etc.



What mass shootings was I referencing? I was thinking going out to a gun range and firing a few clips from an automatic weapon. Where the **** are you getting me talking about shootings in a gun free zone?



Unfortunantly, as many as get born here and do nothing but suck off of the government tit. And that's going to be the case until we:

1. Improve immigration across the board with regards to security, enforcement, temporary entry laws, etc

2. Reform the entitlement programs that they use

3. Pass a constitutional amendment

4. Manage to argue the point before the courts and get the Supreme Court to rule that your interpritation is the correct one.

Doing an unconstitutional end around simply because some think its quicker and easier is not an acceptable option to me. ****ting upon conservative principle in the name of conservative ideals is counter productive and violates the very nature of labeling oneself as principled, a staunch conservative, or a defender of that political belief system. If your principles only matter up to the point where they're problematic to you then you're anything but principled. You don't do unconstitutional end arounds because you dislike the constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm think part of the 14th Amend should be repealed. I don't think it serves any purpose, as the founders didn't find it necessary originally. Apparently the definition of citizen was based on common sense.
 
American said:
I'm think part of the 14th Amend should be repealed. I don't think it serves any purpose, as the founders didn't find it necessary originally. Apparently the definition of citizen was based on common sense.
Click to expand...

And I absolutely and completely support that repeal, and have said so in this thread. Because that would be the correct way of going about it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Lots of strawmans here. You do know that when the 14th amendment was made and before SCOTUS decided that it included those born here when it originally didn't that people got along just fine as regards to weather they were citizens or not? No one went around asking for peoples parents birth certificates or any crap like that.

But hey, look what we have today....Social Security Cards AND our own personal birth certificates if worse comes to worse. No need for parents BC.

And yes, I support bringing the 14th back to its original meaning as written and argued for by its original author. Who specifically told members of congress, while they were debating on adding it, that it was never meant to include those that came here illegally.
Click to expand...

I think the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in its meaning. And, before the 14th, we had slavery in this country, a permanent class of non-citizen human beings who never knew any other land but this one.

You think repealing the 14th Amendment just applies to those foreign looking, Spanish speaking people but forget that we are a nation of equal protection under the law. No 14th Amendment applies to you, too.

With no 14th Amendment your American birth certificate doesn't prove a Goddamn thing anymore — same thing for that Social Security card you're waving around: you may have obtained it under false pretenses back when a 14th Amendment assured us that you were ‘legal’ solely by reference to that American birth certificate. No more.

If your claim to citizenship in this country is based on your American birth certificate then without the 14th Amendment only your parent's legal immigration status at the time of your birth assures us that you are in fact a citizen. That's not a straw man; that's the law.

Papers please.
 
Last edited:
I guess somebody forgot to tell these schmucks that deciding who does and does not get to be a citizen is so far out of their jurisdiction that they may as well be holding a press conference on Uranus.
 
Chappy said:
I think the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in its meaning. And, before the 14th, we had slavery in this country, a permanent class of non-citizen human beings who never knew any other land but this one.

You think repealing the 14th Amendment just applies to those foreign looking, Spanish speaking people but forget that we are a nation of equal protection under the law. No 14th Amendment applies to you, too.

With no 14th Amendment your American birth certificate doesn't prove a Goddamn thing anymore — same thing for that Social Security card you're waving around: you may have obtained it under false pretenses back when a 14th Amendment assured us that you were ‘legal’ solely by reference to that American birth certificate. No more.

If your claim to citizenship in this country is based on your American birth certificate then without the 14th Amendment only your parent's legal immigration status at the time of your birth assures us that you are in fact a citizen. That's not a straw man; that's the law.

Papers please.
Click to expand...

Don't be such an idiot. There are nations that don't grant citizenship by birth, and they're not Nazis Germany. Jus sanguinis is common and so Lex sanguinis, which *GASP* discriminates on basis of ethnicity! That, and I'm fairly sure this movement stops children of illegal immigrants in the future from having citizenship. Laws are not retroactive.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
… I'll be deploying to Afghanistan in a few months. …
Click to expand...

Thank you for your service. Stay safe and hurry back.

Without the protections accorded you under the 14th Amendment, or, in your case, the Dream Act should it pass (and it should), when you get back here your citizenship status may depend on the immigration status of your parents. Were they legal? Can you prove it?

I know, I know you think it's obvious that you're an American citizen but under the rules you would impose, an American birth certificate ain't enough anymore; you must demonstrate that your parents were here legally, too, and, their parents, etc.

You might ‘look’ American, ‘sound’ American, and, ‘act’ American but that's simply because you were ‘raised’ American; to be ‘American,’ your parents had better of been here legally and can prove it.
 
Oh, and by the way, scream racism all you want. That doesn't change the FACT that Mexico is WAY more violent than the United States, and by extension, Mexicans. The murder rate in Mexico in 2004 was 13.4 per 100,000. In the USA in the same year it was 5.62. That means the murder rate in Mexico was over DOUBLE our rate. Of course, that varies by city and place, but overall...
 
Vincent said:
Oh, and by the way, scream racism all you want. That doesn't change the FACT that Mexico is WAY more violent than the United States, and by extension, Mexicans. The murder rate in Mexico in 2004 was 13.4 per 100,000. In the USA in the same year it was 5.62. That means the murder rate in Mexico was over DOUBLE our rate. Of course, that varies by city and place, but overall...
Click to expand...

Ok. So how is that relevant to anything?
 
Vincent said:
… Laws are not retroactive.
Click to expand...

So your children are safe because you were here prior to 2011? And, all those brown skinned tykes born in this country prior to 2011 are legal, too, irregardless of their parents immigration status?

The line starts now?

Fair enough. Then that American non-citizen underclass, starts now, too: people who were born here, never knew any other country but this one, grew up here, went to school here, perhaps defended this country but can't trace back their heritage to someone who was legally living here prior to 2011. Okay. There you are. That's the consequence. A permanent underclass of human beings who have no other place but here and aren't citizens perhaps never will be. And, their children and their children's children, them, too.

America doesn't have an underclass. Our ancestors paid dearly in the American Civil War to end the underclass. Let's not start having one now.
 
Chappy said:
So your children are safe because you were here prior to 2011? And, all those brown skinned tykes born in this country prior to 2011 are legal, too, irregardless of their parents immigration status?

The line starts now?

Fair enough. Then that American non-citizen underclass, starts now, too: people who were born here, never knew any other country but this one, grew up here, went to school here, perhaps defended this country but can't trace back their heritage to someone who was legally living here prior to 2011. Okay. There you are. That's the consequence. A permanent underclass of human beings who have no other place but here and aren't citizens perhaps never will be. And, their children and their children's children, them, too.

America doesn't have an underclass. Our ancestors paid dearly in the American Civil War to end the underclass. Let's not start having one now.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! This might be the first time someone has conceded my point in any internet debate. And that was the point--such a law talked about in that article would not affect people already born and living here. It would affect people in the future. So a woman going to the hospital to have a kid wouldn't need to produce papers that her parents were citizens, she would merely need to produce proof that she's a citizen. And I'm pretty sure it's not too hard to produce a birth certificate if you were born here, it's entered into databases as well as you getting a paper, if I recall correctly.

And puh-leaze, don't start getting all weepy. If being a non-citizen is such a bad thing, then non-citizens would stay in their own nations instead of illegally crossing borders and breaking the law. If it's such a bad thing, then hopefully the parents of those to-be non-citizens won't inflict it upon their children.

Better idea--let's have our immigration laws be a duplicate of Mexico's laws. Then Latinos won't have anything to complain about!

Mexico's illegals laws tougher than Arizona's - Washington Times

And lastly, the Civil War wasn't fought "to end a subclass" or free the slaves. The South fought it to preserve State's rights and the North fought it to preserve the size of the nation.

To quote President Lincoln...
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
Click to expand...

In other words, Lincoln only made slavery an issue as a tool to help is goal of keeping the nation united.
 
Last edited:
Vincent said:
Oh, and by the way, scream racism all you want. That doesn't change the FACT that Mexico is WAY more violent than the United States, and by extension, Mexicans. The murder rate in Mexico in 2004 was 13.4 per 100,000. In the USA in the same year it was 5.62. That means the murder rate in Mexico was over DOUBLE our rate. Of course, that varies by city and place, but overall...
Click to expand...

Not important. And you have pretty poor understanding as to what is going on in Mexico. The reason Mexico is experiencing a murder rate that's double than ours. Is that there is a drug war going on where the gangs and cartels are actually fighting back. That increases lose. Also Mexico is a poor nation. People in poor nations tend to turn to violence to solve their economic woes.
 
One major problem with the repeal of the 14th amendment:

1. Doing so would create ceaseless generations of people born illegal; two illegal immigrants have a kid, and when that kid becomes an adult they have a kid, who is born illegal, and so forth. That would result people being born criminals without any intent or actions on their own part, and such people would have to live in fear of persecution and deportation for essentially doing nothing wrong.
 
Vincent said:
Don't be such an idiot. There are nations that don't grant citizenship by birth, and they're not Nazis Germany. Jus sanguinis is common and so Lex sanguinis, which *GASP* discriminates on basis of ethnicity! That, and I'm fairly sure this movement stops children of illegal immigrants in the future from having citizenship. Laws are not retroactive.
Click to expand...

True, many states do NOT grant citizenship by birth, but the U.S. does and it has a Constitutional basis. The U.S. is a nation of laws. There is a legal procedure to change the Constitution. Use it. The states have no standing to say that it will ignore the constitution. One thing I dislike about Republicans on this issue is that on so many others, they insist on following the admendment process to effectuate changes in the Constitution rather than rely on judicial fiat, but here they are willing to go around the Constitutional provisions for changing the document on an issue they believe support...
 
Vincent said:
Oh, and by the way, scream racism all you want. That doesn't change the FACT that Mexico is WAY more violent than the United States, and by extension, Mexicans. The murder rate in Mexico in 2004 was 13.4 per 100,000. In the USA in the same year it was 5.62. That means the murder rate in Mexico was over DOUBLE our rate. Of course, that varies by city and place, but overall...
Click to expand...

Then by that argument can I say the U.S. is violent as the U.S. murder rate is far higher than Taiwan and many other East Asian countries?
 
apdst said:
Times have changed. Change with them, or cease to exist.
Click to expand...

Really? I say the same to people who bitch about lightbulbs.

Moving on...

It's fun to see conservatives doing this. It is more proof of what I have been saying all along. The Republican party is now officially catering to the former Democratic base. If you know anything about the Democrats from 50 years ago, you know exactly who Republicans are catering to now.
 
Last edited:
The Giant Noodle said:
I love mexicans! I have mexican friends. Why would you think otherwise? :confused: And regarding the Spanish language....... no **** Sherlock! Thanks for pointing that out Capt. Obvious. :roll:

This is a matter of law. Dont be a low-minded person and make this a race issue because that would be the DUMBEST most ignorant thing to do. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm simply looking at what you wrote
 
Hoplite said:
I'm simply looking at what you wrote
Click to expand...

OK. I just dont want this topic made into something that its not. I cant speak for anyone else... but I will and say no one here is looking at this as a race based topic. And again I like mexican families. They are very similar to Italian ones. Plus we both like tomatoes :)
 
Chappy said:
Without the protections accorded you under the 14th Amendment, or, in your case, the Dream Act should it pass (and it should), when you get back here your citizenship status may depend on the immigration status of your parents. Were they legal? Can you prove it?

I know, I know you think it's obvious that you're an American citizen but under the rules you would impose, an American birth certificate ain't enough anymore; you must demonstrate that your parents were here legally, too, and, their parents, etc.

You might ‘look’ American, ‘sound’ American, and, ‘act’ American but that's simply because you were ‘raised’ American; to be ‘American,’ your parents had better of been here legally and can prove it.
Click to expand...

I'd be Grandfathered in, no problem. There were "American Citizens" before the 14th, there will be after this slight alteration to the 14th.

You do realize that no one is talking about getting rid of the 14th, right?
 
Jerry said:
I'd be Grandfathered in, no problem. There were "American Citizens" before the 14th, there will be after this slight alteration to the 14th.

You do realize that no one is talking about getting rid of the 14th, right?
Click to expand...

but you can't even alter the amendment without the passage of a new amendment, you DO know that, right???
 
Zyphlin said:
I agree completely that allowing people to break the laws, come here, pop out a kid, and then use that kids citizenship as an emotional club to beat the American people into granting them absolution from their crime was not what people invisioned as the purpose of the 14th amendment.

Then again, I'm sure the founders didn't invision the 2nd amendment allowing someone to fire off two or three clips of ammo in the time it took them to shoot, reload, and shoot again. Or that the 1st amendment would allow someone to be heard by over a million people at the same time if not more.

But those unforseen things aren't reason enough for us as conservatives to go along with laws like assult weapons bans or the fairness doctrine.

I have sympathy for these states and agree with their desire for this, and think its the correct desire to have. But there's a method to do what they want to do and the end around they're doing isn't right. Its something conservatives have rallied against when liberals have done it time and time again, and it is an afront to our principles if we do similar. The constitution is important...ALL of it...and that includes the proper means of bypassing constitutional requirements.
Click to expand...

Russel Pierce, the autheur of the AZ bill, said in an interview the other day that he is fully aware that this won't be enacted the way it is written. His aim was to get the Supreme Court to hear it and thus rule on the 14th.
 
Chappy said:
Will the insanity never cease? Are there really this many state lawmakers so ignorant of the essentialness of 14th Amendment to preventing a subclass from forming in this country?
Click to expand...

IN case no one else brought this is up there is the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,". If the 14 amendment meant any and everybody born in the USA is a citizen then why not have "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." instead of "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." Obviously the bold part is just as important as the part of being born here. Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if any and everybody born in the USA is a citizen? The 14th amendment was created to make the freed from slavery and their children citizens of the US.
 
Last edited:
So children born on American soil to parents who are here illegally aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Everybody standing on American soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
 
Jerry said:
Yup.



Oh, you want to play silly games. Very good, let's play silly games.



The OP'sarticle ain't jivin' about repeal'n da 14th. No one iz jivin' about repealing da 14th. otay buh-weet



TEH OPS ARTICLE ISNT TALKIN BOUT REPEALIN TEH 14TH. NO WAN IZ TALKIN BOUT REPEALIN TEH 14TH.



Y, si cualquiera de ellos fue bendito y nacido en este país, entonces, usted sabe la taladradora en este punto, sin la 14a Enmienda, requeriremos ambos sus papeles de naturalización de bisabuelos. Este podría ser un juego de ocho papeles de naturalización; adivino que usted podría tener un libro agradable para guardar a todos ellos juntos.



I'll be deploying to Afghanistan in a few months. See you there?
Click to expand...

Jerry, thank you for your service and may God be with you on your deployment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom