|
Quote:
As for dividing the country, Trump is the one fanning the flames of bigotry, lying to the American people about the situation, deporting US service members promised citizenship, permanently stripping families of their children, working to eliminate hard working dreamers and now seeking to delegitimize the Constitution. And the base loves it all, it’s sickening. Immigration doesn’t have to be an all or nothing proposition. You’re all being played by a white nationalist agenda. This isn’t America. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
It matters not one whit, what the lot of liberals on here believe... This will end up in front of the Supreme Court and they will read and clarify the simple words of the 14th amendment and reinstate it as it was written and enforced up until the 1960s when it was used to increase the draw for immigrants to come to the US, in my belief to increase a permanent lower class of democrat voters. US law clearly states concerning the 14th Amendment that babies born of valid diplomats or ambassadors within the US are not eligible for citizenship. It also stated that the 14th did not apply to native American Indians. The southern states did not want freed slaves to have full citizenship, so the 14th Amendment was crafted to ensure they would be given full citizenship. Please research this and understand that Trump is not trying to change the Amendment, he is attempting to enforce it as written. Not unlike our immigration laws, when prior leaders chose not to enforce the law, and when a leader finally decides to enforce the law, he in NO WAY is changing the law.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
He is trying to change the amendment and ignoring the written record of the original debate surrounding the issue. This is from Congressional Research Service, a part of the Library of Congress The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 Although the primary aim was to secure citizenship for African-Americans, the debates on the citizenship provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment indicate that they were intended to extend U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of race, ethnicity or alienage of the parents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”31 The Fourteenth Amendment declared that “[a]ll 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.”32 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differs from the Fourteenth Amendment by using the terms “not subject to any foreign power” and “excluding Indians not taxed.” During the debates on the act, Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the committee that reported the civil rights bill, moved to amend the bill so that the first sentence read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of color.”33 Senator Cowan of Pennsylvania, who opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, asked “whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” Senator Trumbull replied, “Undoubtedly.” The two disagreed as to whether, under the law in existence prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, ChineseAmericans were citizens of the United States. Cowan raised the specter of unfettered Chinese immigration to California, resulting effectively in something tantamount to a takeover of California by the Chinese empire, if the proposed language were adopted. Trumbull asked Cowan whether the children born in Pennsylvania to German parents were not U.S. citizens, to which Cowan replied that Germans were not Chinese, Australians or Hottentots or the like. Trumbull replied that the law made no distinction between the children of Germans and Asiatics “and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” Later in the debates, Senator Johnson of Maryland urged Senator Trumbull to delete the phrase “without distinction of color” because it was unnecessary since even without the phrase he understood that Trumbull’s proposed amendment “comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born.” Trumbull felt that it was better to retain the phrase to eliminate any doubt or dispute as to the meaning of his amendment.34 |
hey pete....if they meant everyone they would have written it this way...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. |
Quote:
|
Soon you may realize the importance of Judge Kavanaugh.... as I said I believe that this will be decided by the Supreme Court and it will no longer grant blanket citizen ship to illegals. It will take a year or so, but this is something that Trump will come through on.
|
I think the Supreme Court will surprise you
So legislating from the bench is acceptable now, if you get what you want? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
maybe I should have put ... 2 Juan's don't make a white. If both Juan's identify as Juanita's they still wouldn't be legal residents of the US, however they could "legally" use the ladies rest room..... LOL |
Quote:
This quote you posted had virtually nothing to do with the conversation. It was actually elicited by the Indian student's feelings about German self-perception after their holocaust history. And was a very brief explanation, in response to the student, of what many Germans thought at the time. It was not a statement of what Stefan believed. And your three sentence quote is the total of what was said about that. The video was not about the holocaust and the quote was not a description of the holocaust as the SPLC labels it. The actual conversation was about the student's depression over feeling like an "economic immigrant." Stefan takes him, through a series of questions, to finally realizing why the student felt depressed. In the end, there was a total agreement between Stefan and the student. And a lot was revealed about the psychic cost and predatory nature of economic migration. Knowing in general what Molyneux thinks, I'm sure the other 10 quotes are selected from videos to make them appear to be racist or discriminatory, but I very seriously doubt that they are actually any of that. This is that deceptive trick of selection out of context that leftists use to smear those they fear. You got taken. Here is the video, if you care to watch it to verify what I said. There are a lot of very informative, interesting videos like this which are marginalized by leftists by labeling the authors as "alt-right," or "extremist," or "lunatic," or whatever deprecation that motivates people to prejudge and not watch or listen. The motivation behind the perception, it appears to me, is to keep as many people as possible ignorant of whatever truth the left wants to hide. Here is the video, if you care to watch it to verify what I said. Watch the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNtmI3PRzI |
Quote:
So it might be possible to strike down current birth-right for children of illegal aliens by executive order since it has not actually been legislated by Congress nor interpreted as constitutional by SCOTUS. Or it may take and Act of Congress, or even an amendment. But Trump is, in his outlandish seeming way, bringing more attention to the common sense need for the change. And if making an order that is challenged in the Court moves the process along to a critical juncture, that's a good thing. Really. Does it make sense to continue to allow illegal aliens the automatic right to citizenship, or even just the right to take advantage of our system simply by giving birth here. Yeah, the parents aren't going to be deported if they have an anchor baby. So they stay, and can bring relatives, etc. Really? Should this even be a question? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post "illegals who would be subject to foreign jurisdiction." But the German parents (and I presume as well the Chinese and gypsies) were legally residing in the U.S. and in Pennsylvania and were subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There has been no Supreme Court decision that has held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has legislated such a right. So it might be possible to strike down current birth-right for children of illegal aliens by executive order since it has not actually been legislated by Congress nor interpreted as constitutional by SCOTUS. Or it may take and Act of Congress, or even an amendment. Really. Does it make sense to continue to allow illegal aliens the automatic right to citizenship, or even just the right to take advantage of our system simply by giving birth here. Should this even be a question?[/QUOTE] NOT HERE LEGALLY is the clear distinction but useless arguing it with people who will not distinguish between "here legally" and "here illegally" France did away with birthright citizenship in 1993. Ireland was the last of the European Union countries to abolish birthright citizenship, in 2005. Through a referendum backed by nearly 80 percent of Irish voters. Other countries, including New Zealand and Australia, have also abolished their birthright-citizenship laws in recent years. The latest is the Dominican Republic, whose supreme court ruled to remove the country’s birthright laws in 2013. China, Japan, Russia, South Korea—grant citizenship strictly on the basis of whether a baby has at least one parent who is a citizen of the country, as opposed to where the baby is born. this guy in Canada rails agains Trump and Canadian conservatives for approaching the issue and then goes on to admit it's a problem in Canada....he never mentions or differentiates regarding "illegals" other than to say "certain immigrants" should not be scapegoated "Birth tourism, the practice of foreign women coming to Canada to have their babies merely to obtain a Canadian passport for their offspring, is by all accounts a real and growing problem. Is it a big enough problem to warrant an end to birthright citizenship here?" https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...t-citizenship/ |
Quote:
|
Republican Hypocrisy on 14th Amendment And 2nd Amendment
Trump and company have said a million times they want strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. Right? They just want to stick to the texts especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. That's their argument with the Second Amendment about bearing arms. Don't apply it to now and the reality that we have. It only means what it says. And yet now when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment they want the opposite. Don't look at what the Framers said, look at what it means today. They never envisioned this. This isn't about changing the Fourteenth Amendment. It's really about reinterpreting in light of a new reality of illegal entrants. 100% correct CP funny I have already asked this question here ... no answers shocking |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
slaves didn't sneak into the country stupid
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
The argument is which is correct to use Jus Soli or Jus Sanguin
The Congressional scholars who did the research for Congress disagree with Trump Historical Development Jus Soli Doctrine before the Fourteenth Amendment There are two basic doctrines for determining birthright citizenship. Jus soli is the principle that a person acquires citizenship in a nation by virtue of his birth in that nation or its territorial possessions.2 Jus sanguinis is the principle that a person acquires the citizenship of his parents, “citizenship of the blood.”3 The English common law tradition prior to the Declaration of Independence, which was the basis of the common law in the original thirteen colonies and which was adopted by most of the states as the precedent for state common law,4 followed the jus soli doctrine.5 Persons born within the dominion of the sovereign and under the protection and ligeance of the sovereign were subjects of the sovereign and citizens of England; this included persons born to “aliens in amity” who owed temporary allegiance to the sovereign while in his territory.6 The exceptions were persons born to members of a hostile occupying force or to diplomats representing another sovereign.7 The reason was that the children of a hostile occupying force did not owe allegiance to nor were born under the protection of the proper sovereign of the occupied territory. The children of diplomats, although enjoying the temporary protection of the sovereign while in his/her dominions, actually owed allegiance to and had a claim to the protection of the sovereign whom their parents represented at the court of the sovereign in whose dominions they were born. All civilized nations recognize and assent to the immunity of foreign diplomats from their jurisdiction, without which a foreign ambassador might not be able to effectively represent the sending sovereign, but it would be “inconvenient and dangerous to society . . . if [private individual aliens] did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.”8 The original framers of the U.S. Constitution did not define citizenship of the United States, although the Constitution required that a person have been a citizen of the United States for seven years to be a Representative and for nine years to be a Senator,9 and that a person be a natural-born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in order to be eligible to be President (and therefore, Vice-President).10 The Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Acts until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment did not define citizenship by birth within the United States.11 These naturalization acts specified that only free white persons could be naturalized. As a result of the absence of any definition in the Constitution or federal statutes of U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States, citizenship by birth in the United States generally was construed in the context of the English common law.12 This provided the frame of reference and definition of “citizenship” that the framers of the Constitution would have understood and also provided the pre-independence precedent for state common laws. The acquisition of citizenship by birth and by naturalization in the United States depended on state laws, both statutory and common law, until the enactment of the naturalizationlawin1790.13 TheNaturalizationActof1790,enactedpursuanttothe Congress’ powers under the Constitution,14 clearly established the definition of citizenship by naturalization, but Congress’ silence on the issue of citizenship by birth in the United States caused some confusion and disagreement as to what the appropriate definition was. For example, some persons rejected the idea that English common law provided the proper rule for citizenship by birth in the United States.15 And until the Civil War, some eminent jurists and legal scholars believed that there was no real citizenship of the United States separate from citizenship in a state; that is, a person was a citizen of a state which was part of the Union, therefore a person was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his citizenship in a state.16 Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Is Barron Trunp an Anchor BAby??? Hmmmmm :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Slave" is a more specific term, but as used in the Constitution, it would be anyone who is forced to do labor against his will, is not free to come and go at will, and who is held in bondage purely at the will of a master and whose life is in the hands of that master. What was considered a slave then would be considered a slave today. |
Quote:
That same meaning applies today. Naturalization then, as now, did not occur immediately upon entry. Then it was typically a matter of years in residence. Today it also requires some form of official documentation. In neither instance would someone crossing the border without official permission immediately become a citizen. So would still be under the jurisdiction of the country from which they came. So any baby of theirs born in that time before naturalization would be born of those who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but to the jurisdiction of another country, at least until they were naturalized. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com