# Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?



## Publius1787

Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?


----------



## eagle1462010

Absolutely...................

Only two developed nations in the world still use this.  The United States and Canada..........All other developed countries have gotten rid of it and rightfully so.................


----------



## Politico

No there are actually about 10. And with the exception of one or two they are the only ones having an illegal problem. That in itself speaks against having such a policy.


----------



## eagle1462010

Politico said:


> No there are actually about 10. And with the exception of one or two they are the only ones having an illegal problem. That in itself speaks against having such a policy.



Developed Nations.............The other 8 are not considered developed.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?


This is ignorant and makes no sense.

The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.

We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

eagle1462010 said:


> Absolutely...................
> 
> Only two developed nations in the world still use this.  The United States and Canada..........All other developed countries have gotten rid of it and rightfully so.................


And this is an example of the ignorance and hate the 14th Amendment guards against.


----------



## Publius1787

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorant and makes no sense.
> 
> The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.
> 
> We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.
Click to expand...


You would not need to repeal the entire 14th Amendment. You would only need to repeal the section of the 14th Amendment that states "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." and replace it with "All persons naturalized or born to citizens in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

 The only people who wouldn't support such a measure are those who want a flood of poor uneducated reliable democrat voters sucking off of the teet of the honest American taxpayer and screwing other migrants who are waiting for their chance.


----------



## eagle1462010

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorant and makes no sense.
> 
> The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.
> 
> We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.
Click to expand...

It would basically amend the 14th............most of the world has rejected that 2 immigrants of different nationalities having a baby in their country should not constitute citizenship.  The parents not being citizens.............it is a policy that is being abused and that is why countries in Europe and A


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely...................
> 
> Only two developed nations in the world still use this.  The United States and Canada..........All other developed countries have gotten rid of it and rightfully so.................
> 
> 
> 
> And this is an example of the ignorance and hate the 14th Amendment guards against.
Click to expand...

Baloney.............It is the right under the constitution to amend laws that are being abuses as it is being abused now.

It's not about hate..........it's about reforming our immigration policies to reject a clause that is being abused.............and RATIONAL Nations around the world have rejected this policy.


----------



## Politico

eagle1462010 said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> No there are actually about 10. And with the exception of one or two they are the only ones having an illegal problem. That in itself speaks against having such a policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Developed Nations.............The other 8 are not considered developed.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah we get it. America fuck yeah!. The point remains the same.


----------



## Skull Pilot

If at least one of the parents is not a citizen then their children should not be.


----------



## Publius1787

Skull Pilot said:


> If at least one of the parents is not a citizen then their children should not be.



Important distinction. But I would grant citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Of course, if they're not married I would deport the alien and make them go through what every other family must to get their spouse to this country. With an extra penalty of course.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?





> You would not need to repeal the entire 14th Amendment. You would only need to repeal the section of the 14th Amendment that states "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." and replace it with "All persons naturalized or born to citizens in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."



Interesting can of worms you are opening up. In essence the 14th Amendment clearly establishes that citizenship and the inherent rights associated with citizenship are bestowed at birth as opposed to conception. But that is for another thread. 

If you attempt to draw a distinction by alleging that only those "born to citizens" are eligible then you are violating the basic concept of birthrights. If you can deny citizenship as a birthright then what else can you deny? That children are not entitled to an education either? How would that work out in 20 years when you have a generation of illiterates who cannot find employment? What do you imagine they are going to do instead? Are you going to deport these children? To where? They are not citizens of any other nation so you cannot "send them back" to some country that has no record of their birth.

You need to think through the consequences of your proposal if you want anyone to take it seriously.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

No.

If being born here doesn't make you American any more many of us are in trouble since some of our ancestors would be disqualified if it were grandfathered in.


----------



## Oldglory1

Delta4Embassy said:


> No.
> 
> If being born here doesn't make you American any more many of us are in trouble since some of our ancestors would be disqualified if it were grandfathered in.



WTH are you talking about?   Most American's ancestors were born here.  Most countries do not allow children oF illegal alien parents to be birthright citizens. and rightly so!


----------



## WorldWatcher

>

Yes.

Oh you don't have to repeal the 14th amendment, the only thing that needs to happen is to clarify what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.  If you are here legally (whether visa, workers permit, green card, etc.) or the child born here of an existing citizen you are by birth a citizen.  On the other hand if you are here as a diplomatic representative of a foreign power or have no legal status to be in this country, then a child born is not a citizen.


>>>>


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.



That has nothing to do with it.  You act like it would be punishment for kids to inherit the citizenship of their parents.   Birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens was never meant to bestowed on them by the writers of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Oldglory1 said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> If being born here doesn't make you American any more many of us are in trouble since some of our ancestors would be disqualified if it were grandfathered in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH are you talking about?   Most American's ancestors were born here.  Most countries do not allow children oF illegal alien parents to be birthright citizens. and rightly so!
Click to expand...


"Unfortunately, the only rule one can apply to all U.S. naturalization records--certainly all those prior to September 1906--is that there was no rule.(1)

 There were certain legal and social provisions, however, governing which women did and did not go to court to naturalize. In general, immigrant women have always had the right to become U.S. citizens, but not every court honored that right. Since the mid-nineteenth century a succession of laws worked to keep certain women out of naturalization records, either by granting them derivative citizenship or barring their naturalization altogether. It is this variety of laws covering the history of women's naturalization, as well as different courts' varying interpretation of those laws, that help explain whether a naturalization record exists for any given immigrant woman.

While original U.S. nationality legislation of 1790, 1795, and 1802 limited naturalization eligibility to "free white persons," it did not limit eligibility by sex. But as early as 1804 the law began to draw distinctions regarding married women in naturalization law. Since that date, and until 1934, when a man filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen but died prior to naturalization, his widow and minor children were "considered as citizens of the United States" if they/she appeared in court and took the oath of allegiance and renunciation.(2) Thus, among naturalization court records, one could find a record of a woman taking the oath, but find no corresponding declaration for her, and perhaps no petition. "
Prologue Selected Articles

Consequently, without 'being born here makes you a citizen' some of us could be technically illegal because an ancestor woman wasn't considered legal.


----------



## Skull Pilot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.


It is not a punishment to deny citizenship to the children of non-citizens.


----------



## MrDVS1

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?



I'd rather support an amendment to forbid birthright citizenship to all and any non-citizens.


----------



## MrDVS1

Publius1787 said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If at least one of the parents is not a citizen then their children should not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Important distinction. But I would grant citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Of course, if they're not married I would deport the alien and make them go through what every other family must to get their spouse to this country. With an extra penalty of course.
Click to expand...


We already give citizenship to children of citizens, even if it's only one parent that is a citizen.


----------



## asterism

I think anyone born here should have the option of being a citizen, but that doesn't create an obligation to take care of their parents.


----------



## Conservative65

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?



I support the concept but an amendment is not needed.  What needs to happen is the 14th amendment being misused to do that has to stop.  The clause in the 14th that has been misused for that purpose, has served it's purpose and it was to overrule the Dred Scott decision which considered blacks as property rather than people.  Perhaps those who misuse the 14th should try and get one passed to say that simply being born here gives citizenship even if the parents are illegal.


----------



## Derideo_Te

WorldWatcher said:


> the only thing that needs to happen is to clarify what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.



Everyone within the 50 states and the various territories are subject to the jurisdiction of the Law of the Land. That applies to citizens, green card holders, people here with visas and illegal immigrants. Everyone is subject to the Law of that Land, period.

And while we are clarifying let's make sure that we understand what that means. Illegal immigrants are entitled to due process rights, free speech rights, equality under the law and privacy rights. Everyone here legally is entitled to all Constitutional rights with the notable exceptions of voting, jury duty and holding certain elected offices that are for citizens only.


----------



## Publius1787

MrDVS1 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If at least one of the parents is not a citizen then their children should not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Important distinction. But I would grant citizenship to those who have at least one citizen parent. Of course, if they're not married I would deport the alien and make them go through what every other family must to get their spouse to this country. With an extra penalty of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We already give citizenship to children of citizens, even if it's only one parent that is a citizen.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that wasn't always the case. Hence the 14th Amendment. I don't usually type this ... but "Duh."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Oh you don't have to repeal the 14th amendment, the only thing that needs to happen is to clarify what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.  If you are here legally (whether visa, workers permit, green card, etc.) or the child born here of an existing citizen you are by birth a citizen.  On the other hand if you are here as a diplomatic representative of a foreign power or have no legal status to be in this country, then a child born is not a citizen.
> 
> 
> >>>>


The 14th Amendment would in fact need to be repealed because its vast case law would conflict with the new 'amendment.' where the Constitution and its Amendments exist only in the context of their case law. Indeed, there would need to be two 'amendments,' one repealing the 14th and another enacting its reckless, irresponsible, and unwarranted provision.

This also ignores 14th Amendment jurisprudence recognizing the inalienable rights that manifest as a consequence of our humanity, placing those rights out of the reach of capricious politicians, bureaucrats, and simple majorities. When one comes into existence as a person within the jurisdiction of the United States, he is clothed in those inalienable rights as a person, and is a citizen consequently, regardless the status of his parents.

Moreover, many are clearly unaware of the fact that the 14th Amendment was ratified in part to render null and void the Supreme Court's decision in _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ (1857), which held that because African-Americans were brought to the United States as slaves, they were not members of the political community “formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," and were consequently not citizens of the United States and not entitled to Constitutional protections. Those seeking to destroy citizenship at birth in essence seek to reinstate the _Dred Scott_ 'rationale,' that because those in the United States absent authorization are not members of the 'political community,' they, and subsequently their children, are not entitled to Constitutional protections, and citizenship rights for those children.

Clearly advocacy of such an 'amendment' is motivated solely by hostility toward a class of persons for no other reason than who they are.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with it.  You act like it would be punishment for kids to inherit the citizenship of their parents.   Birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens was never meant to bestowed on them by the writers of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it.

And it is not an 'act' but a fact, seeking to deny citizenship to those born in the United States is reckless and irresponsible, designed to be punitive against the children born here because of their parents' citizenship status, where advocates of such an 'amendment' wish only to create a 'disincentive' to discourage further immigration of persons perceived by some 'undesirable.' This 'amendment' is proposed in bad faith, predicated on ignorance and fear, would not comport with the overall intent of the Constitution and its case law to comprehensively protect the rights of all persons in the United States, and would poison the Constitution with its inherent ignorance and fear.

This is why in fact the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children as a consequence of their parents' actions. See: _Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al._ (1972).


----------



## JakeStarkey

Not one state would ratify it.


----------



## Publius1787

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with it.  You act like it would be punishment for kids to inherit the citizenship of their parents.   Birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens was never meant to bestowed on them by the writers of the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has everything to do with it.
> 
> And it is not an 'act' but a fact, seeking to deny citizenship to those born in the United States is reckless and irresponsible, designed to be punitive against the children born here because of their parents' citizenship status, where advocates of such an 'amendment' wish only to create a 'disincentive' to discourage further immigration of persons perceived by some 'undesirable.' This 'amendment' is proposed in bad faith, predicated on ignorance and fear, would not comport with the overall intent of the Constitution and its case law to comprehensively protect the rights of all persons in the United States, and would poison the Constitution with its inherent ignorance and fear.
> 
> This is why in fact the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children as a consequence of their parents' actions. See: _Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al._ (1972).
Click to expand...


Yeah, its certainly fair to those people who go through the citizenship process legally. No, the only people who support what you do want an impoverished welfare voting block of reliable leftist votes.


----------



## Publius1787

JakeStarkey said:


> Not one state would ratify it.



Now that's certainly not true.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius1787 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one state would ratify it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's certainly not true.
Click to expand...


That certainly is true.  Almost all Hispanics, a great majority of women, the Dems, and responsible Republicans will vote against such libertarian silliness.


----------



## Publius1787

JakeStarkey said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not one state would ratify it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's certainly not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That certainly is true.  Almost all Hispanics, a great majority of women, the Dems, and responsible Republicans will vote against such libertarian silliness.
Click to expand...


Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Publius1787 said:


> Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.



Facts not even remotely in evidence!


----------



## Publius1787

Derideo_Te said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts not even remotely in evidence!
Click to expand...


Nor are they in the opposite


----------



## Derideo_Te

Publius1787 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts not even remotely in evidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor are they in the opposite
Click to expand...


Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are pulling your imaginary "support" for this farcical amendment from your nether regions.


----------



## Publius1787

Derideo_Te said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks and Whites alike would approve it resoundingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facts not even remotely in evidence!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor are they in the opposite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are pulling your imaginary "support" for this farcical amendment from your nether regions.
Click to expand...


Indeed, nothing to go on but a gut feeling of the American electorate. What, you expected me to command otherwise? Listen, I'm an intellectually honest person. I said there is no evidence in either direction. However, you chose to question me as opposed to question the opposite. That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Publius1787 said:


> That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.



Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.

That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.


----------



## Publius1787

Derideo_Te said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.
> 
> That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.
Click to expand...


I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things. After all, you're the one claiming the mantle of upholding the U.S. Constitution, although, I seriously doubt you've ever made the attempt to read it.

If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty. See how I used fact and reason to dismantle your craziness? You should try it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius, Protectionist, HealthMyths


----------



## Derideo_Te

Publius1787 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.
> 
> That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.
> 
> If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.
Click to expand...


Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!


----------



## Publius1787

Derideo_Te said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.
> 
> That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.
> 
> If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!
Click to expand...


A straw man is when you set up a fictional argument not proposed by the opposite party for the sole purpose of dismantling an argument that was never proposed. I did nothing of the sort. Now, must I explain what "duly" means as well? How old are you kid?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Publius, your whole series of arguments are based in fiction.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Publius1787 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.
> 
> That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.
> 
> If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A straw man is when you set up a fictional argument not proposed by the opposite party for the sole purpose of dismantling an argument that was never proposed. I did nothing of the sort. Now, must I explain what "duly" means as well? How old are you kid?
Click to expand...


This was your strawman;



> I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.



It was entirely fictional and I made no such proposal. You posted that strawman BS purely for the devious purpose of attempting to dishonestly discredit my position.

If you cannot admit to your own disingenuousness then there is no reason to waste my time on someone who lacks the basics of honesty and integrity!

Have a nice day.


----------



## Publius1787

Derideo_Te said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.
> That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.
> If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A straw man is when you set up a fictional argument not proposed by the opposite party for the sole purpose of dismantling an argument that was never proposed. I did nothing of the sort. Now, must I explain what "duly" means as well? How old are you kid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This was your strawman;
> 
> 
> 
> I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was entirely fictional and I made no such proposal. You posted that strawman BS purely for the devious purpose of attempting to dishonestly discredit my position.
> If you cannot admit to your own disingenuousness then there is no reason to waste my time on someone who lacks the basics of honesty and integrity!
> Have a nice day.
Click to expand...




Derideo_Te said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.
> 
> That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.
Click to expand...


See the above quote. I rest my case.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Publius1787 said:


> I rest my case.



By your own admission you never had one to start with. 

But ironic that you would use your own despicable canards about me as the basis for "resting".

Thanks for admitting that you do lack any shred of honesty and integrity.


----------



## Publius1787

Derideo_Te said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own admission you never had one to start with.
> 
> But ironic that you would use your own despicable canards about me as the basis for "resting".
> 
> Thanks for admitting that you do lack any shred of honesty and integrity.
Click to expand...


Whatever you need to say to convince yourself you're right man. Good luck with that.


----------



## bombsoverMexico

100% support it.and if there gonna get citizen statis they should deny giving the parents a birth certificate i know theres laws on the books that say you cant reap a benafit from somthing if u broke the law in order to get it but i think the easyiest way to change that law is by not allowing a birth certificate


----------



## Dot Com

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?


I do because that is not what it was intended for.


----------



## bombsoverMexico

100% support it. there whole reason for having kids in the u.s is an anchor.just that one thing alone cost tax payers minamuim five billion dollars and as high as 20 billion dollars they cost americans thats alot to pay an illegal for having anchor babys.
theres laws on the books that say you cant reap the beneifit of something that u broke the law to get.
americans need to ban togather to stop this look at all the termoil this country is in because of thease people the biggest thing that nobody ever bribgs up is how bad the quality of life is now hay its very taxing on a person every where they go its hispanics and spanish all ur neighbors are gon and replaced with 20 spanish speaking per house and blairing there mexican music so loud u can hear it two blocks away you cant hang out with ur neighbors and barbeque and just have fun i can go on forever about this.but its to stressfull to think about


----------



## Politico

You guys can't even keep a simple yes or no question on topic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?"

What's remarkable is that there are those so consumed with hatred that they'd propose such idiocy.


----------



## jwoodie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorant and makes no sense.
> 
> The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.
> 
> We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.
Click to expand...


This is ignorant and makes no sense.  

Provisions of a new amendment would supercede a previous amendment.  

A Constitutional Amendment would take this decision away from politicians and bureaucrats.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?"
> 
> What's remarkable is that there are those so consumed with hatred that they'd propose such idiocy.



It has nothing to do with hatred.  Why in the world should children born from illegal aliens get birthright citizenship in our country?   Now that's true idiocy.  That's not what the writer's of the 14th intended.   Many countries do not allow that.  Are they haters also?


----------



## JoeMoma

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?"
> 
> What's remarkable is that there are those so consumed with hatred that they'd propose such idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with hatred.  Why in the world should children born from illegal aliens get birthright citizenship in our country?   Now that's true idiocy.  That's not what the writer's of the 14th intended.   Many countries do not allow that.  Are they haters also?
Click to expand...

I guess we hate all noncitizen children not born in America since we don't give them citizenship.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Most American's ancestors were born here.




Obviously inaccurate.


----------



## Desperado

If the parents are illegally in the United States the child should not be granted citizenship!
As far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned it can't even define who is a natural born citizen.


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.



If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?


----------



## Conservative65

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with it.  You act like it would be punishment for kids to inherit the citizenship of their parents.   Birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens was never meant to bestowed on them by the writers of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


The purpose of that portion of the 14th was done for former slaves that had been considered property under Dred Scott and NEVER for the way it's being used now.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
Click to expand...


Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
Click to expand...


If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?

It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.



So now you are advocating child labor for immigrant children? 

You really are clueless as to how you come across as being selfish and greedy.


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are advocating child labor for immigrant children?
> 
> You really are clueless as to how you come across as being selfish and greedy.
Click to expand...

I'm advocating people support their own kids.  Since I do with what I earn, that keeps me from being greedy.  However, those that senna I support their kids are since they expect something they didn't earn be handed to them.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you are advocating child labor for immigrant children?
> 
> You really are clueless as to how you come across as being selfish and greedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm advocating people support their own kids.  Since I do with what I earn, that keeps me from being greedy.  However, those that senna I support their kids are since they expect something they didn't earn be handed to them.
Click to expand...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
Click to expand...

This fails as a false comparison fallacy. 

That the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children for the bad acts of a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with your subjective and errant perception that the prohibition manifests as a ‘disadvantage’ to your children.    

You’re ignorant of the law and have an unwarranted fear of immigrants, rendering your ‘arguments’ devoid of merit.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> That the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children for the bad acts of a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with your subjective and errant perception that the prohibition manifests as a ‘disadvantage’ to your children.
> 
> You’re ignorant of the law and have an unwarranted fear of immigrants, rendering your ‘arguments’ devoid of merit.
Click to expand...


How is it punishment for children of illegal aliens to gain the citizenship of their parent's country?   "Immigrants"?   These illegal aliens aren't immigrants in the true sense of the law.    We have nothing against "immigrants" that come here legally.  So stuff you sheet.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> How is it punishment for children of illegal aliens to gain the citizenship of their parent's country?



They have American birth certificates. How are you going to deport American born children to a nation that doesn't recognize them as "citizens"?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Oldglory1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> That the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children for the bad acts of a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with your subjective and errant perception that the prohibition manifests as a ‘disadvantage’ to your children.
> 
> You’re ignorant of the law and have an unwarranted fear of immigrants, rendering your ‘arguments’ devoid of merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it punishment for children of illegal aliens to gain the citizenship of their parent's country?   "Immigrants"?   These illegal aliens aren't immigrants in the true sense of the law.    We have nothing against "immigrants" that come here legally.  So stuff you sheet.
Click to expand...

Because children aren’t responsible for their parents’ actions, minor children are subject to the care and control of their parents. And clearly a child who hasn’t been born yet can’t be held responsible because his undocumented mother gave birth to that child in the United States. 

That’s why all persons born in the Unite States are citizens of the United States, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, to safeguard citizens’ civil liberties from the partisan whims of those hostile to immigrants. 

Opposition to citizenship at birth is completely devoid of Constitutional and legal merit, motivated by bigotry toward Hispanics and other ethnic minorities, as it’s incorrectly perceived to be an ‘incentive’ to further immigration.  

That this even has to be explained at all is sad and telling.


----------



## BlackSand

I have no desire to create a Constitutional Amendment addressing birth rights of children born in the United States ... It won't stop illegal immigration.

Can we possibly add a balanced budget amendment instead? Maybe requiring Congress to actually pass a balanced budget every two years ... And suspending all Congressional payroll, services and pensions if the bill is not passed until they do get one signed by the President?

.


----------



## Dot Com

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?"
> 
> What's remarkable is that there are those so consumed with hatred that they'd propose such idiocy.


is there another nation that allows children of illegal aliens automatic citizenship? Doesn't seem right ot me C_Clayton_Jones 

There are 1000's going about it the legal way and waiting their turn.


----------



## Conservative65

What'


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> That the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children for the bad acts of a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with your subjective and errant perception that the prohibition manifests as a ‘disadvantage’ to your children.
> 
> You’re ignorant of the law and have an unwarranted fear of immigrants, rendering your ‘arguments’ devoid of merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it punishment for children of illegal aliens to gain the citizenship of their parent's country?   "Immigrants"?   These illegal aliens aren't immigrants in the true sense of the law.    We have nothing against "immigrants" that come here legally.  So stuff you sheet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because children aren’t responsible for their parents’ actions, minor children are subject to the care and control of their parents. And clearly a child who hasn’t been born yet can’t be held responsible because his undocumented mother gave birth to that child in the United States.
> 
> That’s why all persons born in the Unite States are citizens of the United States, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, to safeguard citizens’ civil liberties from the partisan whims of those hostile to immigrants.
> 
> Opposition to citizenship at birth is completely devoid of Constitutional and legal merit, motivated by bigotry toward Hispanics and other ethnic minorities, as it’s incorrectly perceived to be an ‘incentive’ to further immigration.
> 
> That this even has to be explained at all is sad and telling.
Click to expand...

what's sad  is the traitors who are willing to give citizenship as a sole result of a crime.


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> That the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children for the bad acts of a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with your subjective and errant perception that the prohibition manifests as a ‘disadvantage’ to your children.
> 
> You’re ignorant of the law and have an unwarranted fear of immigrants, rendering your ‘arguments’ devoid of merit.
Click to expand...


Yet you don't mind my children having less so some piece of shit's kids are supported.

I don't fear legal immigrants but I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.  I also despise traitors like you that think they should stay.  That makes your existence without merit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I would support an amendment that would divest a person of citizenship who supported such an action as suggested. by Publius.


----------



## Roadrunner

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorant and makes no sense.
> 
> The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.
> 
> We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.[/QUOTE
Click to expand...




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.




Can the child of a bank robber keep the loot?


----------



## Roadrunner

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> That the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children for the bad acts of a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with your subjective and errant perception that the prohibition manifests as a ‘disadvantage’ to your children.
> 
> You’re ignorant of the law and have an unwarranted fear of immigrants, rendering your ‘arguments’ devoid of merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you don't mind my children having less so some piece of shit's kids are supported.
> 
> I don't fear legal immigrants but I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.  I also despise traitors like you that think they should stay.  That makes your existence without merit.
Click to expand...

"The children" long ago replaced "patriotism" as the last refuge of scoundrels.


----------



## Roadrunner

Conservative65 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support the concept but an amendment is not needed.  What needs to happen is the 14th amendment being misused to do that has to stop.  The clause in the 14th that has been misused for that purpose, has served it's purpose and it was to overrule the Dred Scott decision which considered blacks as property rather than people.  Perhaps those who misuse the 14th should try and get one passed to say that simply being born here gives citizenship even if the parents are illegal.
Click to expand...

The 14th should be repealed.

It is an abomination.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The 14th is the bedrock of modern America.

Those who oppose it should be sent to FEMA camps.


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it punishment for children of illegal aliens to gain the citizenship of their parent's country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have American birth certificates. How are you going to deport American born children to a nation that doesn't recognize them as "citizens"?
Click to expand...


Who said anything about deporting them?   However, their parents should be deported and minor children belong with their parents.  Mexico allows dual citizenship.


----------



## Oldglory1

BlackSand said:


> I have no desire to create a Constitutional Amendment addressing birth rights of children born in the United States ... It won't stop illegal immigration.
> 
> Can we possibly add a balanced budget amendment instead? Maybe requiring Congress to actually pass a balanced budget every two years ... And suspending all Congressional payroll, services and pensions if the bill is not passed until they do get one signed by the President?
> 
> .



The  combination of removing birthright citizenship for their kids,  denying benefits to illegal aliens and the removing the job incentives would absolutely  cut illegal immigration way back.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> The 14th is the bedrock of modern America.
> 
> Those who oppose it should be sent to FEMA camps.



Bedrock?  LOL!  There has never been clarification by the Supreme Court about this travesty of giving children of illegal aliens  birthright citizenship and that was not the writer's of the 14th intent.   At any rate many countries have changed their birthright citizenship qualification so that at least one parent has to be a citizen of their country. 
Those who wish to give our citizenship away to the spawn of illegal aliens who's parents had no respect for our immigration laws and use it to suck our coffers dry are stinking traitors  to this country.


----------



## BlackSand

Oldglory1 said:


> The  combination of removing birthright citizenship for their kids,  denying benefits to illegal aliens and the removing the job incentives would absolutely  cut illegal immigration way back.



Maybe ... But alone the amendment proposed wouldn't stop illegal immigrants. Refusal to deport and facilitating work permits for those here certainly won't stem the desire of more to follow.

If given the choice though ... I would prefer Congress started dealing with more pressing issues, do their job as required by law ... And stop jumping through immigration hoops defined by Progressive Liberals.

It isn't like I don't understand that would be kicking the immigration can down the street ... I just think there is a more important can that needs to be dealt with. Fighting over the lesser of two evils is not a priority when there is another threat present that requires more attention immediately.

If Republicans want to keep walking into the wall the President is building in front of them ... Well, I think that would be foolish. They will hold both the House and Senate as well as the ability to pass legislation. They need to start taking care of business ... And if the President wants to walk off a cliff fighting them ... They shouldn't try to stop him.

.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If parent(s) can't financially support their  own kids, the taxpayers have to do it.  Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids.  Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?
> 
> It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> That the Constitution prohibits punitive measures against children for the bad acts of a parent has nothing whatsoever to do with your subjective and errant perception that the prohibition manifests as a ‘disadvantage’ to your children.
> 
> You’re ignorant of the law and have an unwarranted fear of immigrants, rendering your ‘arguments’ devoid of merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is it punishment for children of illegal aliens to gain the citizenship of their parent's country?   "Immigrants"?   These illegal aliens aren't immigrants in the true sense of the law.    We have nothing against "immigrants" that come here legally.  So stuff you sheet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because children aren’t responsible for their parents’ actions, minor children are subject to the care and control of their parents. And clearly a child who hasn’t been born yet can’t be held responsible because his undocumented mother gave birth to that child in the United States.
> 
> That’s why all persons born in the Unite States are citizens of the United States, in accordance with the 14th Amendment, to safeguard citizens’ civil liberties from the partisan whims of those hostile to immigrants.
> 
> Opposition to citizenship at birth is completely devoid of Constitutional and legal merit, motivated by bigotry toward Hispanics and other ethnic minorities, as it’s incorrectly perceived to be an ‘incentive’ to further immigration.
> 
> That this even has to be explained at all is sad and telling.
Click to expand...


Wrong!  "and " subject to the jurisdiction is your clue and qualifier.  If anyone  born on our soil were automatically a citizen the world "and"     would not have been used in that phrase as a qualifier.

WTH does bigotry have to do with it?   The same thing would apply if an illegal alien were white and from Ireland and there are many of them here also.   So stick your race card where the sun don't shine!

It is an incentive to come here illegally because they can tap into our welfare coffers  for years thru their U.S. born kids and it anchors the parents unto our country.  That was proven just recently with Obama giving a stay of deportation to parents with kids born on our soil.

This whole thing has nothing to do with punishing a child for their parent's lawbreaking because it isn't punishment to inherit the ctizenshhip of one's parents.


----------



## Oldglory1

BlackSand said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The  combination of removing birthright citizenship for their kids,  denying benefits to illegal aliens and the removing the job incentives would absolutely  cut illegal immigration way back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe ... But alone the amendment proposed wouldn't stop illegal immigrants. Refusal to deport and facilitating work permits for those here certainly won't stem the desire of more to follow.
> 
> If given the choice though ... I would prefer Congress started dealing with more pressing issues, do their job as required by law ... And stop jumping through immigration hoops defined by Progressive Liberals.
> 
> It isn't like I don't understand that would be kicking the immigration can down the street ... I just think there is a more important can that needs to be dealt with. Fighting over the lesser of two evils is not a priority when there is another threat present that requires more attention immediately.
> 
> If Republicans want to keep walking into the wall the President is building in front of them ... Well, I think that would be foolish. They will hold both the House and Senate as well as the ability to pass legislation. They need to start taking care of business ... And if the President wants to walk off a cliff fighting them ... They shouldn't try to stop him.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Who is saying that it would stop  illegal immigration 100%?   But you are in serous denial if you don't think it would curtail it immensely.

Since when can't congress deal with more than one issue at a time?  And illegal immigration is a very serious issue in this country.   The GOP  should pull out all stops to reverse this latest action of Obama's by EO that he has pulled so they can show that they care about the American worker and the laws of this country.


----------



## BlackSand

Oldglory1 said:


> Since when can't congress deal with more than one issue at a time?  And illegal immigration is a very serious issue in this country.   The GOP  should pull out all stops to reverse this latest action of Obama's by EO that he has pulled so they can show that they care about the American worker and the laws of this country.



Congress hasn't done their job as required by law and passed a budget (much less a balanced budget or deficit reduction) ... Meaning they obviously cannot deal with that issue. If you think it is more important they continue to jump through the hoop the President put in front of them ... I am satisfied in saying people like you are at least enabling the Congress' dereliction of duty.

I didn't comment on what they could do ... Outside of what they should do ... Which is their fricken job. Balancing the budget and reducing the deficit would go a lot further towards helping Americans feel secure than immigration bickering.

.


----------



## Oldglory1

BlackSand said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since when can't congress deal with more than one issue at a time?  And illegal immigration is a very serious issue in this country.   The GOP  should pull out all stops to reverse this latest action of Obama's by EO that he has pulled so they can show that they care about the American worker and the laws of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress hasn't done their job as required by law and passed a budget ... Meaning they obviously cannot deal with that issue. If you think it is more important they continue to jump through the hoop the President put in front of the ... I am satisfied in saying people like you are at least enabling the Congress' dereliction of duty.
> 
> I didn't comment on what they could do ... Outside of what they should do ... Which is their fricken job. Balancing the budget and reducing the deficit would go a lot further towards helping Americans feel secure than immigration bickering.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Both are important and I ask again are you saying that congress can't deal with two issues at once?   Where did I say that one or the other was more important than the other?  How is it a derilecton in duty to want congress to do both?  They are both important issues.

No, illegal immigration is just as important to deal with as it affects all aspects of our society in a negative way.   It is people like you that have blinders on as to just how important this issue is or maybe you just don't care and are a liberal or an ethnocentric supporter of illegal immigration?


----------



## BlackSand

Oldglory1 said:


> Both are important and I ask again are you saying that congress can't deal with two issues at once?   Where did I say that one or the other was more important than the other?  How is it a derilecton in duty to want congress to do both?  They are both important issues.
> 
> No, illegal immigration is just as important to deal with as it affects all aspects of our society in a negative way.   It is people like you that have blinders on as to just how important this issue is or maybe you just don't care and are a liberal or an ethnocentric supporter of illegal immigration?



No ... It is people like you that allow Progressive Liberals to lead you around by the nose and set the priorities for legislation that eventually results in the exact opposite happening ... That screw us all.

How did fighting about immigration work out for Conservatives in regards the President Obama's Executive Order?

Go ahead and pretend chasing your tail over immigration is ever going to produce positive results for Conservatives, Republicans or the working Americans. You are already so dizzy you cannot tell they just got screwed. Bend over, grab your ankles and get some more if you feel like it ... But I would rather do something more productive.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is the bedrock of modern America.
> 
> Those who oppose it should be sent to FEMA camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bedrock?  LOL!  There has never been clarification by the Supreme Court about this travesty of giving children of illegal aliens  birthright citizenship and that was not the writer's of the 14th intent.   At any rate many countries have changed their birthright citizenship qualification so that at least one parent has to be a citizen of their country.
> Those who wish to give our citizenship away to the spawn of illegal aliens who's parents had no respect for our immigration laws and use it to suck our coffers dry are stinking traitors  to this country.
Click to expand...


Oh, aren't you fierce? 

There is no way that anyone is losing their citizenship.

The American people won't stand for it, and SCOTUS won't permit legislation on it.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.



Your naked racism is ugly!


----------



## Derideo_Te

JakeStarkey said:


> The 14th is the bedrock of modern America.
> 
> Those who oppose it should be sent to FEMA camps.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> Who said anything about deporting them? However, their parents should be deported and minor children belong with their parents.



You just did!


----------



## Oldglory1

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about deporting them? However, their parents should be deported and minor children belong with their parents.
> 
> 
> 
> You just did!
Click to expand...


You lie, no I didn't.   I said that the parents should be deported and should take their kids with them because they belong with their parents.   That isn't deporting them.   The kids could stay here if relatives but what kind of parents wouldn't take their minor children with them?


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th is the bedrock of modern America.
> 
> Those who oppose it should be sent to FEMA camps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bedrock?  LOL!  There has never been clarification by the Supreme Court about this travesty of giving children of illegal aliens  birthright citizenship and that was not the writer's of the 14th intent.   At any rate many countries have changed their birthright citizenship qualification so that at least one parent has to be a citizen of their country.
> Those who wish to give our citizenship away to the spawn of illegal aliens who's parents had no respect for our immigration laws and use it to suck our coffers dry are stinking traitors  to this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, aren't you fierce?
> 
> There is no way that anyone is losing their citizenship.
> 
> The American people won't stand for it, and SCOTUS won't permit legislation on it.
Click to expand...


No one has said to make it retroactive  or to strip anyone of citizenship that they have already.    Amend the 14th so that from that point forward children of illegal aliens would no longer get birthright citizenship.


----------



## Oldglory1

BlackSand said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both are important and I ask again are you saying that congress can't deal with two issues at once?   Where did I say that one or the other was more important than the other?  How is it a derilecton in duty to want congress to do both?  They are both important issues.
> 
> No, illegal immigration is just as important to deal with as it affects all aspects of our society in a negative way.   It is people like you that have blinders on as to just how important this issue is or maybe you just don't care and are a liberal or an ethnocentric supporter of illegal immigration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No ... It is people like you that allow Progressive Liberals to lead you around by the nose and set the priorities for legislation that eventually results in the exact opposite happening ... That screw us all.
> 
> How did fighting about immigration work out for Conservatives in regards the President Obama's Executive Order?
> 
> Go ahead and pretend chasing your tail over immigration is ever going to produce positive results for Conservatives, Republicans or the working Americans. You are already so dizzy you cannot tell they just got screwed. Bend over, grab your ankles and get some more if you feel like it ... But I would rather do something more productive.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You're complete denial and ignorance of  just how bad illegal immigration is for our country and apparent desire to sweep it under the rug is very revealing.  You're the one who is bending over and taking it from illegal aliens and the politicians who favor them rather than fighting for the rights  of Americans.   Coward and traitor come to mind.


----------



## BlackSand

Oldglory1 said:


> You're complete denial and ignorance of  just how bad illegal immigration is for our country and apparent desire to sweep it under the rug is very revealing.  You're the one who is bending over and taking it from illegal aliens and the politicians who favor them rather than fighting for the rights  of Americans.   Coward and traitor come to mind.



Spend more time chasing your tail if you feel like it. Refuse to take control if the dialog and legislation in Congress ... Continue to follow the Progressive Liberal play book. You are the only one in denial if you think you are winning this fight.

There is fine line between bravery and stupidity ... And you seem to have crossed over to the latter. If you honestly think it is going to do you or your party any good to deny birth rights to children ... All I can do is shake my head while you shoot yourself in the foot.

.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Oldglory1 said:


> I said that the parents should be deported and should take their kids with them because they belong with their parents. That isn't deporting them.



You can deny it all you want but you are still advocating deporting American citizens.


----------



## Derideo_Te

BlackSand said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're complete denial and ignorance of  just how bad illegal immigration is for our country and apparent desire to sweep it under the rug is very revealing.  You're the one who is bending over and taking it from illegal aliens and the politicians who favor them rather than fighting for the rights  of Americans.   Coward and traitor come to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spend more time chasing your tail if you feel like it. Refuse to take control if the dialog and legislation in Congress ... Continue to follow the Progressive Liberal play book. You are the only one in denial if you think you are winning this fight.
> 
> There is fine line between bravery and stupidity ... And you seem to have crossed over to the latter. If you honestly think it is going to do you or your party any good to deny birth rights to children ... All I can do is shake my head while you shoot yourself in the foot.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Black Sand is right!

Either the GOP starts governing or it will be seen to have failed on it's core objective of dealing with the budget. 

If you start deporting children who are Americans according to the Constitution you will destroy any chance the GOP has of winning the presidency in 2016 and retaining control of the Senate.


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
Click to expand...


Didn't mention race.


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that the parents should be deported and should take their kids with them because they belong with their parents. That isn't deporting them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want but you are still advocating deporting American citizens.
Click to expand...

I support not giving citizenship to those who are here solely because of a crime.  That you do makes you a TRAITOR.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> I support not giving citizenship to those who are here solely because of a crime



Since when is giving birth a "crime"?


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support not giving citizenship to those who are here solely because of a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is giving birth a "crime"?
Click to expand...


When the bitch that shit you out did so.  It's a crime to humanity.


----------



## Roadrunner

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that the parents should be deported and should take their kids with them because they belong with their parents. That isn't deporting them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want but you are still advocating deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support not giving citizenship to those who are here solely because of a crime.  That you do makes you a TRAITOR.
Click to expand...

A correction to this part of the 14th is in order, by amendment if need be.

We cannot have mothers coming here, having a baby that is a citizen, and then getting to import the whole damned family up here.

Now, given that "Congress shall make no ex post facto law", we are stuck with the present fuckup, but, it can be remedied in the future.

If you are born here, your parents have to be here LEGALLY in order to become a citizen.

That should be common sense.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
Click to expand...


You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.


----------



## Roadrunner

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support not giving citizenship to those who are here solely because of a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is giving birth a "crime"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the bitch that shit you out did so.  It's a crime to humanity.
Click to expand...

Ah, such persuasive eloquent argumentation is what puts Obamas and Clintons in the White House.


----------



## Conservative65

Roadrunner said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that the parents should be deported and should take their kids with them because they belong with their parents. That isn't deporting them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can deny it all you want but you are still advocating deporting American citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support not giving citizenship to those who are here solely because of a crime.  That you do makes you a TRAITOR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A correction to this part of the 14th is in order, by amendment if need be.
> 
> We cannot have mothers coming here, having a baby that is a citizen, and then getting to import the whole damned family up here.
> 
> Now, given that "Congress shall make no ex post facto law", we are stuck with the present fuckup, but, it can be remedied in the future.
> 
> If you are born here, your parents have to be here LEGALLY in order to become a citizen.
> 
> That should be common sense.
Click to expand...

It is common sense.  Only fools wouldn't support it.


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
Click to expand...




Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
Click to expand...

Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.


----------



## Conservative65

Roadrunner said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I support not giving citizenship to those who are here solely because of a crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since when is giving birth a "crime"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the bitch that shit you out did so.  It's a crime to humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, such persuasive eloquent argumentation is what puts Obamas and Clintons in the White House.
Click to expand...

Those that fit what I described do.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
Click to expand...


So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.
Click to expand...


Not that either TRAITOR.  How very typical of your kind.


----------



## martybegan

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
Click to expand...


So disagreeing with people is now racist? aaaand the bar has been buried 5 feet below the ground.


----------



## martybegan

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.
Click to expand...


And the bigot word comes out. I see we have taken the next step in the "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names" progressive playbook.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that either TRAITOR.  How very typical of your kind.
Click to expand...


Are you denying that you are a christian because that is believable. 

I don't know any genuine christian who would want to be associated with an un-American arrogant bigot like you.


----------



## Conservative65

martybegan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So disagreeing with people is now racist? aaaand the bar has been buried 5 feet below the ground.
Click to expand...

It does to people like Derideo.  It's his go to claim when he had nothing which is every time.


----------



## Conservative65

martybegan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your naked racism is ugly!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the bigot word comes out. I see we have taken the next step in the "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names" progressive playbook.
Click to expand...

He knows that playbook.


----------



## Derideo_Te

martybegan said:


> "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names"





Ironic given that it is Conservative65 that is calling Obama, Holder and immigrants names.


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.  ...




Being a fucking scumbag doesn't bolster your case, idiot. Grow the fuck up, "shithead."


----------



## martybegan

Derideo_Te said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given that it is Conservative65 that is calling Obama, Holder and immigrants names.
Click to expand...


So calling someone a name = racist?


----------



## Conservative65

Derideo_Te said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that either TRAITOR.  How very typical of your kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you denying that you are a christian because that is believable.
> 
> I don't know any genuine christian who would want to be associated with an un-American arrogant bigot like you.
Click to expand...


So you are a traitor.  Your kind is easy to spot.


----------



## Conservative65

To peop


martybegan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given that it is Conservative65 that is calling Obama, Holder and immigrants names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling someone a name = racist?
Click to expand...

To people like  Derideo it is.  They're like Pavlov's dogs.  Someone disagrees with them and they bark terms from a list they've been taught.


----------



## Conservative65

Go fuck yours


Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a fucking scumbag doesn't bolster your case, idiot. Grow the fuck up, "shithead."
Click to expand...


Go fuck yourself and mind your own business.


----------



## Conservative65

You confuse calling names with c


Derideo_Te said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given that it is Conservative65 that is calling Obama, Holder and immigrants names.
Click to expand...

i call Obama and Holder what they are.  I reference illegal immigrant and the traitors like you that support them being here.


----------



## Conservative65

STFU.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Meltdown Alert for Conservative65!


----------



## Derideo_Te

martybegan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given that it is Conservative65 that is calling Obama, Holder and immigrants names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling someone a name = racist?
Click to expand...


There is a difference between using appropriate adjectives to describe the image that someone is projecting of themselves and using spurious denigrating vulgarities for no other reason than to expose their feelings of unwarranted arrogant superiority. 

If you cannot tell the difference then that is your problem.


----------



## martybegan

Derideo_Te said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given that it is Conservative65 that is calling Obama, Holder and immigrants names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling someone a name = racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between using appropriate adjectives to describe the image that someone is projecting of themselves and using spurious denigrating vulgarities for no other reason than to expose their feelings of unwarranted arrogant superiority.
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference then that is your problem.
Click to expand...


But how is that automatically racist or bigoted?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Go fuck yours
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a fucking scumbag doesn't bolster your case, idiot. Grow the fuck up, "shithead."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself and mind your own business.
Click to expand...



I said grow up, shithead. You're off to a bad start.


----------



## guno

Conservative65 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have called Obama and Holder "turds". You are calling Latinos "shitheads". That makes you a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that either TRAITOR.  How very typical of your kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you denying that you are a christian because that is believable.
> 
> I don't know any genuine christian who would want to be associated with an un-American arrogant bigot like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a traitor.  Your kind is easy to spot.
Click to expand...



angry geriatric  neo confederate cracker aren't you


----------



## Unkotare

Oh look, Batshit Boy the racist bigot is trolling again. AGAIN. This useless fucking waste of bandwidth NEVER does anything else.


----------



## Conservative65

guno said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mention race.  You took it that way because you have nothing else.  It makes you a loser.  You seem to have forgotten that Obama's mother was a piece of white trash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you prefer being an arrogant bigot instead of a racist? How very christian of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that either TRAITOR.  How very typical of your kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you denying that you are a christian because that is believable.
> 
> I don't know any genuine christian who would want to be associated with an un-American arrogant bigot like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are a traitor.  Your kind is easy to spot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> angry geriatric  neo confederate cracker aren't you
Click to expand...


So you're a traitor, too. If you think calling me a cracker bothers me, you're wrong. Trash like you don't matter son.


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yours
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a fucking scumbag doesn't bolster your case, idiot. Grow the fuck up, "shithead."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself and mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said grow up, shithead. You're off to a bad start.
Click to expand...

I know what you spouted.  My statement to you stands.


----------



## Derideo_Te

martybegan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> "they disagree with me and I don't have the IQ to counter rationally, so i call them names"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic given that it is Conservative65 that is calling Obama, Holder and immigrants names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling someone a name = racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between using appropriate adjectives to describe the image that someone is projecting of themselves and using spurious denigrating vulgarities for no other reason than to expose their feelings of unwarranted arrogant superiority.
> 
> If you cannot tell the difference then that is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But how is that automatically racist or bigoted?
Click to expand...


Ironic that you accused me of lacking IQ when you can't even make the glaringly obvious connection!


----------



## JakeStarkey

neo confederate crackers don't like being called what they are, but the want to name call others?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yours
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise illegal ones and the shitheads they squirt out.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being a fucking scumbag doesn't bolster your case, idiot. Grow the fuck up, "shithead."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself and mind your own business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I said grow up, shithead. You're off to a bad start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know what you spouted.  My statement to you stands.
Click to expand...



You're a hopeless little punk.


----------



## Dot Com

If you're in the country illegally and have children  they're illegal as well. Anything else is a bastardization of the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Unkotare

Dot Com said:


> If you're in the country illegally and have children they're illegal as well. ....




Not according to the Supreme Court.


----------



## 007

Not only should children born to illegal alien parents not be allowed citizenship, but none of them, parents and children alike, should ever, EVER, be allowed to vote. The ONLY people that should be given that sacred right is immigrants that came to this country LEGALLY, and jumped through all the hoops and paid all the fees and took the oath.


----------



## MaryL

This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.




You won't do a damn thing about it though, will you?


----------



## MaryL

Any su


Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't do a damn thing about it though, will you?
Click to expand...

 Well, I am damned if I do, damned if I don't. What do you suggest? Bitching on the internet, calling in the "authorities" (hasn't worked so far) , voodoo curses, I am  open to most anything. I am sure you have a yet as known, wry witty solution.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Any su
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't do a damn thing about it though, will you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I am damned if I do, damned if I don't. What do you suggest? Bitching on the internet, calling in the "authorities" (hasn't worked so far) , voodoo curses, I am  open to most anything. I am sure you have a yet as known, wry witty solution.
Click to expand...



Wow, you are one ignorant old broad.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorant and makes no sense.
> 
> The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.
> 
> We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.
Click to expand...



Federal Immigration Laws is a process that already determines the citizenship of immigrants without prejudice, while amnesty undermines those laws by choose those who illegally establish themselves as citizens OVER those still awaiting legal status into this country.

This Constitutional Amendment would keep the process fair for ALL seeking citizenship.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Unkotare said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't do a damn thing about it though, will you?
Click to expand...


It all starts with voting during this past mid term elections, Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting any younger and the court could use a younger Justice that's very knowledgable of Constitutional law and who will respect the it's separation of powers


----------



## Conservative65

Unkotare said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're in the country illegally and have children they're illegal as well. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

 
Sounds to me as if they have no understanding of the intent behind the amendment they misinterpreted.  Those that were part of writing the Amendment even said so.  What that means is anyone saying differently goes against those at the heart of what it was designed to do and that wasn't to give the little turds shit out by illegal immigrant mothers citizenship because the bitch chose to break the law and come here illegally.  You don't have to be me.  You can read what those who wrote the amendment said:

Anchor babies birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment colorado immigration law resources reference


----------



## JoeMoma

Unkotare said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're in the country illegally and have children they're illegal as well. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Which is the reason that the problem should be fixed by constitutional ammendmendment.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeMoma said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're in the country illegally and have children they're illegal as well. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is the reason that the problem should be fixed by constitutional ammendmendment.
Click to expand...



And what have you done in that regard?


----------



## Unkotare

Conservative65 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're in the country illegally and have children they're illegal as well. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds to me as if they have no understanding of the intent behind the amendment they misinterpreted.
Click to expand...



And exactly what are your qualifications that anyone would consider you a greater constitutional scholar than the members of the Supreme Court, past or present? Disagreeing is one thing, but for an idiot like you to pretend you are more educated on matters of constitutional law is beyond risible.


----------



## Unkotare

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't do a damn thing about it though, will you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all starts with voting during this past mid term elections, Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting any younger and the court could use a younger Justice that's very knowledgable of Constitutional law and who will respect the it's separation of powers
Click to expand...



And yet enough idiots voted to reelect obama despite how badly he has fucked things up.


----------



## Dot Com

Unkotare said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't do a damn thing about it though, will you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all starts with voting during this past mid term elections, Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting any younger and the court could use a younger Justice that's very knowledgable of Constitutional law and who will respect the it's separation of powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet enough idiots voted to reelect obama despite how badly he has fucked things up.
Click to expand...

who did you vote for scat boi?


----------



## Taz

The problem is letting the illegals stay long enough to even have children. Catch & Deport immediately is the only solution.

The Constitution should only apply to actual citizens and legal immigrants...


----------



## JakeStarkey

This conservative rump in SCOTUS will not overturn the 14th.  And the libs will support them as we all know well.

The fact is you Nativists have absolutely no power to ever effect such a change,  so enjoy your mental masturbation, which feels good and is sterile.


----------



## Unkotare

Taz said:


> The Constitution should only apply to actual citizens and legal immigrants...




Doesn't work that way. Never has.


----------



## Agit8r

It's pretty ironic that anyone who cares about "original intent" would want to restrict immigration (since the founding fathers did not do so, nor did they enumerate such a power in the constitution)


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> This conservative rump in SCOTUS will not overturn the 14th.  And the libs will support them as we all know well.
> 
> The fact is you Nativists have absolutely no power to ever effect such a change,  so enjoy your mental masturbation, which feels good and is sterile.



Isn't this the same individual who said voters would never turn to elect Republicans, that they are this doomed dying party that needs to change to be relevant? Enough said.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

fucked things up.[/QUOTE]

I never said they were idiots the consolation prize?


Unkotare said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Achilles  heel to America Immigration law, it and needs to be resolved once and for all. Yes, we need to get this loophole fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You won't do a damn thing about it though, will you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It all starts with voting during this past mid term elections, Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting any younger and the court could use a younger Justice that's very knowledgable of Constitutional law and who will respect the it's separation of powers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet enough idiots voted to reelect obama despite how badly he has fucked things up.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't necessarily call those who supported Obama's re-election idiots. Perhaps Romney didn't do a good job in presenting his case against Obama, they didn't like the choices they had before them, so they went to the more familiar "consolation prize"? Although Obama's speech regarding the  recent mid term election results definitely revealed his arrogant side, as he showed his open disrespect of those voters who exercised their Constitutional duty. This president clearly has a hatred of those who stands in the way of what he alone PREFERS to see for this country, which now includes those voters who didn't back his party. Will that help the Democrats? Probably not. 

So to answer your complaint, Romney wasn't the kind of republican the people were willing to back. If you want to see who the people DO support, look to those Republican representatives they actually did elect, which to no surprise includes African Americans and women of the GOP.


----------



## Taz

Unkotare said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution should only apply to actual citizens and legal immigrants...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't work that way. Never has.
Click to expand...

That's why the word "should" was the third word in the sentence. 
It's also why we have so many illegals. The Constitution is out of date.


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conservative rump in SCOTUS will not overturn the 14th.  And the libs will support them as we all know well.
> 
> The fact is you Nativists have absolutely no power to ever effect such a change,  so enjoy your mental masturbation, which feels good and is sterile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this the same individual who said voters would never turn to elect Republicans, that they are this doomed dying party that needs to change to be relevant? Enough said.
Click to expand...

Nope, you lied by omission.  The GOP did what I said they needed to do,  The GOP reached out to women and minorities, and did well; the GOP starved TP candidates in the primaries of money and did well.  Only those who don't understand the American electorate say silly things like you just did


----------



## JakeStarkey

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conservative rump in SCOTUS will not overturn the 14th.  And the libs will support them as we all know well.
> 
> The fact is you Nativists have absolutely no power to ever effect such a change,  so enjoy your mental masturbation, which feels good and is sterile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this the same individual who said voters would never turn to elect Republicans, that they are this doomed dying party that needs to change to be relevant? Enough said.
Click to expand...


To win in 2016 we need to continue to reach out to women, minorities, and the center, and we never can do that by running a far right candidate  The Perry type candidates will never get more than 42% of the vote.


----------



## Oldglory1

Agit8r said:


> It's pretty ironic that anyone who cares about "original intent" would want to restrict immigration (since the founding fathers did not do so, nor did they enumerate such a power in the constitution)



Restricting "immigration"?   What are you talking about?  I don't know of anyone who has a problem with legal immigration in numbers that we can accommodate in jobs and resources.     We allow in over 1 million a year.  Of course our immigration quotas can't be the same as they were 100 years ago because our population has grown immensely since then and we have a shortage of those things today, duh.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anti-immigration propaganda from the far right will contribute to a Republican loss in 2016.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> This conservative rump in SCOTUS will not overturn the 14th.  And the libs will support them as we all know well.
> 
> The fact is you Nativists have absolutely no power to ever effect such a change,  so enjoy your mental masturbation, which feels good and is sterile.



WTH  does nativism have to do with not wanting children of illegal aliens to receive birthright citizenship?    Why should they get rewarded for their parent's lawbreaking?   It makes a mockery out of our citizenship.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> Anti-immigration propaganda from the far right will contribute to a Republican loss in 2016.



You just negated everything you just said and gone back to your old ways with this post.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Anti-immigration propaganda from the far right will contribute to a Republican loss in 2016.



What anti-"immigrant" propaganda?   Who's anti-"immigrant"?   This is about illegal aliens not "immigrants" you damned fool.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tough to be anti-immigrant, fools, for you do not get to redefine what you are.

You can't hide from the voters.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> Tough to be anti-immigrant, fools, for you do not get to redefine what you are.
> 
> You can't hide from the voters.



In the end who did the voters choose to side with exactly ... Republicans or Obama with all this illegal immigrantion rhetoric? Wasn't his argument for amnesty able to bring more like minded individuals to the polls, who share in his views? Who is hiding from voters?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.



Not sure your view is shared by those immigrants who came here "legally".  I bumped into someone today who just happened to be talking about the rising food prices. I agreed things are tough right now. She then said she came here from Italy, went through the whole long process to be a citizen here she said, and was rather upset to see what this president is planning to do with his views over the illegals that are here. Perhaps you should talk to those who attained citizenship under the law and see what THEY have to say about it. After all, they went through the immigration process, their views carry a little more weight than yours.


----------



## JakeStarkey

She may well feel that way, but let's see if the GOP's continued opposition to the EO brings a negative effect, a major negative effect, in the presidential election.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.



You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Tough to be anti-immigrant, fools, for you do not get to redefine what you are.
> 
> You can't hide from the voters.



Again, with your lies.   Those who oppose "illegal" immigration are not anti-"immigrant"..    They have no problem with those who come here legally.


----------



## jillian

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?



then what is citizenship based on? blood? like in the third reich?


----------



## jillian

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...


not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship


----------



## Sunni Man

jillian said:


> then what is citizenship based on? blood? like in the third reich?


It never fails.

Every time a juden posts they have to bring up either the Nazis or the Holohoax.    ...       .


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

jillian said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship
Click to expand...


It's about complying with immigration laws that treat all immigrants equally. Granting amnesty treats one group of immigrants differently than those who go through the long process of actually OBEYING the law. Laws need to be applied to ALL who seek citizenship, not giving special "exception" to any one group over another.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about complying with immigration laws that treat all immigrants equally. Granting amnesty treats one group of immigrants differently than those who go through the long process of actually OBEYING the law. Laws need to be applied to ALL who seek citizenship, not giving special "exception" to any one group over another.
Click to expand...

Which is why no one is advocating for 'amnesty,' not the president, not anyone in Congress.

Indeed, 14th Amendment jurisprudence has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration per se, because those born here are American citizens, regardless the status of their parents.

It's perfectly appropriate to address the issue of illegal immigration, it is not appropriate to seek punitive measures against citizens of the United States in violation of the Constitution.

That those hostile to Hispanics entering the country absent authorization perceive 14th Amendment jurisprudence as an 'incentive' to continued illegal immigration is not justification to indeed violate the 14th Amendment, or advocate for its repeal.


----------



## jillian

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about complying with immigration laws that treat all immigrants equally. Granting amnesty treats one group of immigrants differently than those who go through the long process of actually OBEYING the law. Laws need to be applied to ALL who seek citizenship, not giving special "exception" to any one group over another.
Click to expand...


again, absent birth, what do you think is the appropriate measure of citizenship?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

jillian said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about complying with immigration laws that treat all immigrants equally. Granting amnesty treats one group of immigrants differently than those who go through the long process of actually OBEYING the law. Laws need to be applied to ALL who seek citizenship, not giving special "exception" to any one group over another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, absent birth, what do you think is the appropriate measure of citizenship?
Click to expand...

And, absent birth, who should have the authority to make that determination – certainly not capricious and partisan bureaucrats, politicians, and political appointees.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about complying with immigration laws that treat all immigrants equally. Granting amnesty treats one group of immigrants differently than those who go through the long process of actually OBEYING the law. Laws need to be applied to ALL who seek citizenship, not giving special "exception" to any one group over another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why no one is advocating for 'amnesty,' not the president, not anyone in Congress.
> 
> Indeed, 14th Amendment jurisprudence has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration per se, because those born here are American citizens, regardless the status of their parents.
> 
> It's perfectly appropriate to address the issue of illegal immigration, it is not appropriate to seek punitive measures against citizens of the United States in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> That those hostile to Hispanics entering the country absent authorization perceive 14th Amendment jurisprudence as an 'incentive' to continued illegal immigration is not justification to indeed violate the 14th Amendment, or advocate for its repeal.
Click to expand...


We have Federal Immigration Laws that dictate a "process" to which one can attain legal citizenship. This is the same procedure that immigrants overseas must comply to in order to gain status that enables them to become Americans. There is no need to bring about a seperate set of procedures because you want to treat these immigrants to a different set of rules and standards than others MUST adhere to. There is no reason, or excuse that can be made for it that would maintain a level playing field with those who DO endure the only process available to them UNDER THE LAW.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

jillian said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about complying with immigration laws that treat all immigrants equally. Granting amnesty treats one group of immigrants differently than those who go through the long process of actually OBEYING the law. Laws need to be applied to ALL who seek citizenship, not giving special "exception" to any one group over another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, absent birth, what do you think is the appropriate measure of citizenship?
Click to expand...


Parents of children who are illegal immigrants still had broken the law and gain no position of status to become citizens outside of what the Federal Law allows. These parents who broke the law are still subject to deportation, as well as those children who are otherwise left with no one to care for them. That is the Federal Law that each and every immigrant must subject themselves to WITHOUT prejudice. When you become a US citizen you are subject to its laws. How can one take an oath of citizenship, when a violation of law they are supposed to be subject to adhering to is already evident?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Shakles, "[T] here is [a] need to bring about a separate set of procedures" by EO when a rogue House will not govern. The House was not elected to obstruct.

Pass the Senate Bill sitting on Boehner's desk.


----------



## bodecea

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> This is ignorant and makes no sense.
> 
> The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.
> 
> We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of posters here who, if given the chance, would repeal the 14th amendment.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> Shakles, "[T] here is [a] need to bring about a separate set of procedures" by EO when a rogue House will not govern. The House was not elected to obstruct.
> 
> Pass the Senate Bill sitting on Boehner's desk.



There is already a Federal Immigration law in place that has been passed which every inbound immigrant had to adhere to and follow if they want to become a citizen. It's the same process that has been used since the 50s, and has been a very good job of setting the same equal footing for ALL immigrants to follow regardless of where they happen to reside from.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Shakles, "[T] here is [a] need to bring about a separate set of procedures" by EO when a rogue House will not govern. The House was not elected to obstruct.
> 
> Pass the Senate Bill sitting on Boehner's desk.



Neither the House nor the Senate should enact legislation that is a detriment to our own citizens.  That is precisely what the Senate bill is so why should the House pass it?   Obstructing is a good thing in this case.


----------



## Oldglory1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-immigrant nativists of the far right are trying to hide, and Boehner is not buying it.  Come on, guys, unfriend Boehner on FB and be done with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just continue to lie, don't you?  Who is anti-"immigrant"?   It is illegal aliens that the objection is about.  Nativism has nothing to do with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's about complying with immigration laws that treat all immigrants equally. Granting amnesty treats one group of immigrants differently than those who go through the long process of actually OBEYING the law. Laws need to be applied to ALL who seek citizenship, not giving special "exception" to any one group over another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is why no one is advocating for 'amnesty,' not the president, not anyone in Congress.
> 
> Indeed, 14th Amendment jurisprudence has nothing to do with the issue of illegal immigration per se, because those born here are American citizens, regardless the status of their parents.
> 
> It's perfectly appropriate to address the issue of illegal immigration, it is not appropriate to seek punitive measures against citizens of the United States in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> That those hostile to Hispanics entering the country absent authorization perceive 14th Amendment jurisprudence as an 'incentive' to continued illegal immigration is not justification to indeed violate the 14th Amendment, or advocate for its repeal.
Click to expand...


Wrong!   Neither the parents nor their offspring are under the full jurisdiction of the U.S. and it was not the intent of the writers of the 14th to grant birthright citizenship to the spawn of parents here illegally.   FYI, it isn't only Hispanics that are taking advantage of the mis-interpretation of the 14th amendment.

And yes , allowing illegal aliens to remain here without returning to their homelands and applying to come here legally is amnesty.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The party was elected to govern not obstruct.

Look up the word amnesty, because it is clear you don't understand the definition.

Your definition of the 14th does not matter.

The legislation is good legislation, no one is going to mass deport the illegals, and no one will split up families.

They are here to stay and if we don't want to give the Dems the swing vote, we will learn to abide these facts.


----------



## High_Gravity

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?


 
Yes, at least one of the parents has to have legal status i.e work permit, Green card etc for the child to have citizenship.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

JakeStarkey said:


> The party was elected to govern not obstruct.
> 
> Look up the word amnesty, because it is clear you don't understand the definition.
> 
> Your definition of the 14th does not matter.
> 
> The legislation is good legislation, no one is going to mass deport the illegals, and no one will split up families.
> 
> They are here to stay and if we don't want to give the Dems the swing vote, we will learn to abide these facts.



Those republicans were elected to represent their constituents who elected them in office. The people during the mid term election have spoken, an it's clearly not on the side of president Obama and the Democrats.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your wrong, Shakles, but that is only your issue not mine.

The vote yesterday was symbolic, meaning nothing.  Now lets unfriend the Pres on FB and move on to governing the country.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Great advice for McConnell and Boehner both

*Trent Lott's advice to Mitch McConnell: 'Deal sternly' with GOP obstructionists*
*'I wouldn’t put up with some of the stuff that they’re doing,' said Lott, a former Republican Senate majority leader, speaking at a Monitor breakfast with Tom Daschle, a Democratic former Senate majority leader*

*Trent Lott s advice to Mitch McConnell Deal sternly with GOP obstructionists - Yahoo News*


----------



## Kondor3

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?


Yes.


----------



## Kondor3

Kondor3 said:


> Publius1787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


I also wonder if there is another way, namely...

Getting a more conservative Supreme Court to rule in that same fashion...

Holding that the 14th was intended to (1) remove legal barriers to enfranchisement for ex-slaves and (2) define the rights of the offspring of American citizens and that it (3) was not intended as a legal and metaphorical Anchor for the Illegal Alien parents of their offspring who happened to be born here during their Illegal stay here.

If it's  practical to obtain such a ruling in coming years, that may negate the need for such a revisionist Amendment - I dunno.


----------



## Conservative65

What needs to be done is to hold to the original intent of that clause and it NEVER was intended to grant citizenship to anyone who, as a sole result of a criminal, act was born here.  That concept was misinterpreted years later.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> The party was elected to govern not obstruct.
> 
> Look up the word amnesty, because it is clear you don't understand the definition.
> 
> Your definition of the 14th does not matter.
> 
> The legislation is good legislation, no one is going to mass deport the illegals, and no one will split up families.
> 
> They are here to stay and if we don't want to give the Dems the swing vote, we will learn to abide these facts.



It is not "my" definition of the 14th.   It was based on the writer's intent.

To not pass legislation that is a detriment to our own citizens is to be an obstructionist?

No, it is clear that you don't know what amnesty is.  Since they won't be returned to their homelands and have to apply to come back here legally like legal immigrants do it is amnesty.

Who is suggesting to mass deport illegal aliens?  Removing the incentives for them to remain here will cause many if not most to self-deport.

Separation of families?    The whole family can return to the homeland together.      Besides, there are many of them that leave their families behind in the homeland to come here.  So cry me a river.    Bad things happen to lawbreakers.   When Americans break the law and go to prison aren't they separated from their families?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Only to a small portion of our population is forced deportation a desired goal.

That small portion is the fascist far right, that thinks it is subverting and undermining and taking over the GOP.

You are getting a wake up call this term, and it will be reinforced in the 2016 elections.  Either the GOP mainstream will elect sensible legislators and a president, or the Dems will take over the entire system.

The extremists in the Dems can take over the country with the Latino vote, or we can reach to that vote, ignore you folks, and have a balanced, good country.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> Only to a small portion of our population is forced deportation a desired goal.
> 
> That small portion is the fascist far right, that thinks it is subverting and undermining and taking over the GOP.
> 
> You are getting a wake up call this term, and it will be reinforced in the 2016 elections.  Either the GOP mainstream will elect sensible legislators and a president, or the Dems will take over the entire system.
> 
> The extremists in the Dems can take over the country with the Latino vote, or we can reach to that vote, ignore you folks, and have a balanced, good country.



In other words allow our elected leaders to ignore the law and do whatever they please..................which is exactly what they are doing now.

They swore an oath to uphold our laws...........not ignore them..................illegal is illegal unless you are a dumb ass............and to the votes............because the left ignores the laws in this country they get over 80% of the hispanic vote already by violating the law.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Our leaders interpret the law, and if they disagree with you, tough.

And the Hispanics gave more votes to the GOP along with women.

Jeopardize that, and you will GIVE the country to the left.


----------



## eagle1462010

JakeStarkey said:


> Our leaders interpret the law, and if they disagree with you, tough.



aka They interpret it anyway they please...................The immigration laws are pretty clear cut, as are the violations................You just pick and choose what laws you deem worthy..............

That's BS and you know it, unless you want to live under a dictator.........Mr. Fakey.


----------



## Kondor3

Conservative65 said:


> What needs to be done is to hold to the original intent of that clause and it NEVER was intended to grant citizenship to anyone who, as a sole result of a criminal, act was born here.  That concept was misinterpreted years later.


Which is exactly what a more conservative ( anti-Anchor-Babies ) *RE*-interpretation by SCOTUS of the 14th would do...

Keeping the principle of ex post facto in mind...

Such a ruling might have to be applied going forward, rather than retroactively, but even 'forward only' would be of help in future.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then tell the Congress to get a law passed.

As long as it fails, the president has EO power.  That's the way it works.

A "forward ruling" law,if passed, might survive a SCOTUS review.

Such a ruling would make sure the growing Latino population kept the nativist ilk  in check.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Then tell the Congress to get a law passed.
> 
> As long as it fails, the president has EO power.  That's the way it works.
> 
> A "forward ruling" law,if passed, might survive a SCOTUS review.
> 
> Such a ruling would make sure the growing Latino population kept the nativist ilk  in check.



What nativism is their towards Latinos?   Are you not aware that they hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country and that doesn't even count the numerous family reunifications that they have here?   What happened to diversity?   I don't care who an illegal alien is they shouldn't be granted amnesty nor a stay of deportation.   That isn't what our immigration laws state.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Our leaders interpret the law, and if they disagree with you, tough.
> 
> And the Hispanics gave more votes to the GOP along with women.
> 
> Jeopardize that, and you will GIVE the country to the left.



Are you insane?   Hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat.   Are you saying that our politicians should thumb their noses at our immigration laws to gain the Hispanic vote?   What makes them so special and above those laws?


----------



## Indofred

Publius1787 said:


> Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?



I do, as long as it covers all immigrant families, regardless of how many generations they have been in the Americas.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell the Congress to get a law passed.
> 
> As long as it fails, the president has EO power.  That's the way it works.
> 
> A "forward ruling" law,if passed, might survive a SCOTUS review.
> 
> Such a ruling would make sure the growing Latino population kept the nativist ilk  in check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What nativism is their towards Latinos?   Are you not aware that they hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country and that doesn't even count the numerous family reunifications that they have here?   What happened to diversity?   I don't care who an illegal alien is they shouldn't be granted amnesty nor a stay of deportation.   That isn't what our immigration laws state.
Click to expand...


That a far right group hates the growing power of Latinos, whether legal or illegal, then, yes, that is Nativism.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our leaders interpret the law, and if they disagree with you, tough.
> 
> And the Hispanics gave more votes to the GOP along with women.
> 
> Jeopardize that, and you will GIVE the country to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you insane?   Hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat.   Are you saying that our politicians should thumb their noses at our immigration laws to gain the Hispanic vote?   What makes them so special and above those laws?
Click to expand...


Your way will increase the Latino vote from 73% to over 90%, making it impossible for our GOP to win the presidency.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our leaders interpret the law, and if they disagree with you, tough.
> 
> And the Hispanics gave more votes to the GOP along with women.
> 
> Jeopardize that, and you will GIVE the country to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you insane?   Hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat.   Are you saying that our politicians should thumb their noses at our immigration laws to gain the Hispanic vote?   What makes them so special and above those laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your way will increase the Latino vote from 73% to over 90%, making it impossible for our GOP to win the presidency.
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our leaders interpret the law, and if they disagree with you, tough.
> 
> And the Hispanics gave more votes to the GOP along with women.
> 
> Jeopardize that, and you will GIVE the country to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you insane?   Hispanics overwhelmingly vote Democrat.   Are you saying that our politicians should thumb their noses at our immigration laws to gain the Hispanic vote?   What makes them so special and above those laws?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your way will increase the Latino vote from 73% to over 90%, making it impossible for our GOP to win the presidency.
Click to expand...


Again I ask and of course you avoided the question.    Are you saying that our politicians should thumb their noses at our immigration laws to gain the Hispanic vote?   What is wrong with an ethnic group that thinks their group should above those laws?   Amnesty will be harmful to Americans or don't Hispanics give a damn about that?  The Latino vote in only about 10-12% of the entire electorate.     Did you fail in math?


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell the Congress to get a law passed.
> 
> As long as it fails, the president has EO power.  That's the way it works.
> 
> A "forward ruling" law,if passed, might survive a SCOTUS review.
> 
> Such a ruling would make sure the growing Latino population kept the nativist ilk  in check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What nativism is their towards Latinos?   Are you not aware that they hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country and that doesn't even count the numerous family reunifications that they have here?   What happened to diversity?   I don't care who an illegal alien is they shouldn't be granted amnesty nor a stay of deportation.   That isn't what our immigration laws state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a far right group hates the growing power of Latinos, whether legal or illegal, then, yes, that is Nativism.
Click to expand...


Who cares about the far right or left?   You can't use the extreme to make your lame case.   Most conservative Americans don't have a problem with Latinos that are here legally, assimilated into our country and honor our immigration laws which should include not thinking their group here illegally is above those laws.   I see no Nativism here based on that.


----------



## Conservative65

JakeStarkey said:


> The party was elected to govern not obstruct.
> 
> Look up the word amnesty, because it is clear you don't understand the definition.
> 
> Your definition of the 14th does not matter.
> 
> The legislation is good legislation, no one is going to mass deport the illegals, and no one will split up families.
> 
> They are here to stay and if we don't want to give the Dems the swing vote, we will learn to abide these facts.


 
The intent of the 14th Amendment is what matters and it was never intended to do what it is doing with anchor baby status.

I don't have a problem sending the illegal parents of an achor baby back.  They have the choice of going with or without the child.  What they should never be given is the opportunity to stay. 

Your problem is that you are willing to allow criminals to stay because they had a child here that, without that CRIMINAL act, wouldn't be an issue.  If you want to cater to the Liberals and compromise principles, do so.  I refuse to compromise mine.  You call yourself a Republican but practice the Democrat mindset.  Please join them in name as you are already one of them in deeds.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oldglory1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell the Congress to get a law passed.
> 
> As long as it fails, the president has EO power.  That's the way it works.
> 
> A "forward ruling" law,if passed, might survive a SCOTUS review.
> 
> Such a ruling would make sure the growing Latino population kept the nativist ilk  in check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What nativism is their towards Latinos?   Are you not aware that they hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country and that doesn't even count the numerous family reunifications that they have here?   What happened to diversity?   I don't care who an illegal alien is they shouldn't be granted amnesty nor a stay of deportation.   That isn't what our immigration laws state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a far right group hates the growing power of Latinos, whether legal or illegal, then, yes, that is Nativism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares about the far right or left?   You can't use the extreme to make your lame case.   Most conservative Americans don't have a problem with Latinos that are here legally, assimilated into our country and honor our immigration laws which should include not thinking their group here illegally is above those laws.   I see no Nativism here based on that.
Click to expand...


The extreme are those that want to ignore the 14th for their own nativist issues.

That you don't see it convicts you of your own narrow vision.

But go for an Amendment if you wish.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What matters is that the far right nativists are not going to accomplish what they want.


----------



## Oldglory1

JakeStarkey said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then tell the Congress to get a law passed.
> 
> As long as it fails, the president has EO power.  That's the way it works.
> 
> A "forward ruling" law,if passed, might survive a SCOTUS review.
> 
> Such a ruling would make sure the growing Latino population kept the nativist ilk  in check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What nativism is their towards Latinos?   Are you not aware that they hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country and that doesn't even count the numerous family reunifications that they have here?   What happened to diversity?   I don't care who an illegal alien is they shouldn't be granted amnesty nor a stay of deportation.   That isn't what our immigration laws state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That a far right group hates the growing power of Latinos, whether legal or illegal, then, yes, that is Nativism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who cares about the far right or left?   You can't use the extreme to make your lame case.   Most conservative Americans don't have a problem with Latinos that are here legally, assimilated into our country and honor our immigration laws which should include not thinking their group here illegally is above those laws.   I see no Nativism here based on that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The extreme are those that want to ignore the 14th for their own nativist issues.
> 
> That you don't see it convicts you of your own narrow vision.
> 
> But go for an Amendment if you wish.
Click to expand...


No, the extreme are those who stick their heads in the sand and refuse to see what the actual intent of the 14th was.   The extreme are those who refuse to acknowledge what a scam it is giving our citizenship to the spawn of illegal aliens who  had no respect for our laws.

WTH does nativism have to do with it?   We already have foreigners here legally giving birth on our soil and we have no problem with that.  Birthright citizenship will be re-interpreted in the not too distant future whether you like it or not.   Which are you,  a bleeding heart liberal or an ethnocentric Hispanic licking your chops over the unnatural and unlawful transformation of our country via illegal immigration?


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Birthright citizenship will be re-interpreted in the not too distant future whether you like it or not.




When?


----------



## Taz

I think that whatever you all decide about all the illegals, it's too fucking late anyways.


----------



## Oldglory1

Taz said:


> I think that whatever you all decide about all the illegals, it's too fucking late anyways.



Nope, it is not too late.   Enforce the laws on the books and only vote for politicians who support that.


----------



## Oldglory1

Unkotare said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birthright citizenship will be re-interpreted in the not too distant future whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
Click to expand...


Since you claim not to be an illegal aliein supporter.........Hmm on the question.


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birthright citizenship will be re-interpreted in the not too distant future whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you claim not to be an illegal aliein supporter.........Hmm on the question.
Click to expand...



That's not an answer, Daffy.


----------



## Oldglory1

Unkotare said:


> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birthright citizenship will be re-interpreted in the not too distant future whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you claim not to be an illegal aliein supporter.........Hmm on the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an answer, Daffy.
Click to expand...


 Your uncivil attitude and insults in here is why I rarely reply to you.   Why don't you grow up?


----------



## Unkotare

Oldglory1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldglory1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Birthright citizenship will be re-interpreted in the not too distant future whether you like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you claim not to be an illegal aliein supporter.........Hmm on the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not an answer, Daffy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your uncivil attitude and insults in here is why I rarely reply to you.   Why don't you grow up?
Click to expand...


Why don't you stop ducking, Donald?


----------

