Birthright Citizenship Causes Illegal Immigration

[TNHarley]

You clowns saying the intent of the amendment is well documented only want to look at a narrow set of documented facts but unfortunately for you clowns, yes, the intent and context surrounding that intent, are well documented. Children of slaves had to be expressly granted citizinship because their children had previously been expressly forbidden it unlike every other immigrant child. This was a country of immigrants. There was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. Every person's child, many of whom were immigrants, were given citizenship except for the children of slaves. If there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant, it's hard to argue the 14th's intent was to exclude them. The context of the 14th is that it finally ensured all children born here, other than those of diplomats of sovereign nations, be treated equally under the law. Good luck challenging that you Bingos.

Actually, those issues you say didnt exist, were discussed.
Try again.

 

[Unkotare]

The 14th Amendment was not worded clearly and thus has been used by the Democrats to justify birthright citizenship for a children born to pregnant mothers who managed to stumble into the country. The amendment was written the year after the Civil War ended and was obviously intended to insure the rights of newly freed American slaves and their offspring.

In that case, wouldn't it have been expected to be clarified by the USSC sometime between then and now?

 

[Curried Goats]

The 14th Amendment was not worded clearly and thus has been used by the Democrats to justify birthright citizenship for a child born to pregnant mothers who managed to stumble into the country. The amendment was written the year after the Civil War ended and was obviously intended to insure the rights of newly freed American slaves and their offspring.

Have you read the 14th Amendment? It's worded pretty clearly and it doesn't mention slaves at all. Not even once you illiterate Bingo. It does say All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. What's unclear about that? Don't projectect your Bingo education on to the rest of us. All those words are pretty clear to me. Do you need me to explain to you what All people means?

 

[Curried Goats]

Actually, those issues you say didnt exist, were discussed.
Try again.

Maybe try and be more specific. What issues are you alleging were discussed and where is your evidence?

 

[MarathonMike]

Have you read the 14th Amendment? It's worded pretty clearly and it doesn't mention slaves at all. Not even once you illiterate Bingo. It does say All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. What's unclear about that? Don't projectect your Bingo education on to the rest of us. All those words are pretty clear to me. Do you need me to explain to you what All people means?

I've read the entire Constitution and it's amendments. The 14th amendment is the most abused amendment of all because the wording was not specific enough. We did not have a bloated Federal government with massive social service programs in 1866. You have to examine the context of the time in which the amendment was written, they didn't have a crystal ball seeing hundreds of thousands of desperate people pouring into the country TAKING RESOURCES AWAY from poor American citizens. Birthright citizenship was never intended to be a carrot to entice these people to endanger themselves entering the country illegally.

 

[Curried Goats]

I've read the entire Constitution and it's amendments. The 14th amendment is the most abused amendment of all because the wording was not specific enough.

There is no ambiguity in the words All persons born. That's incredibly clear. You can pretend to be the biggest Bingo in all the land and it won't change that.

We did not have a bloated Federal government with massive social service programs in 1866.

Your feelings on the State of the country today have no bearing on who does and doesn't get to be a citizen. Nor should it. Sorry snowflake.

You have to examine the context of the time in which the amendment was written, they didn't have a crystal ball seeing hundreds of thousands of desperate people pouring into the country TAKING RESOURCES AWAY from poor American citizens.

Wait which time do we have to give context to again? Back then when the law was written or today? You seem thoroughly confused. Your argument is the same one gun control advocates make about semiautomatic weapons today and the muskets that existed during the adoption of the 2nd.

Birthright citizenship was never intended to be a carrot to entice these people to endanger themselves entering the country illegally.

No one had to enter the country illegally, they just entered. Everyone here is a descendant of an immigrant.

 

[Independent thinker]

No..... learn to read. I recognize the power of the Court to see whatever cases it wants. If they never care to hear a challenge to birth right citizenship then that should tell you something.

It tells me that we need to move forward with this. They never heard a challenge to RvW either until recently. But, I'm glad you agree we should get this going for a determination.

 

[Curried Goats]

It tells me that we need to move forward with this. They never heard a challenge to RvW either until recently. But, I'm glad you agree we should get this going for a determination.

I do agree with you being public Bingos. I'm all for you idiots attacking birth right citizenship. Have at it.

 

[Independent thinker]

I do agree with you being public Bingos. I'm all for you idiots attacking birth right citizenship. Have at it.

Glad we got your permission.

 

[surada]

No, it doesnt. Interpretations of it do.
The intent of the amendment is well documented.

It's very clearly written.

 

[MarathonMike]

There is no ambiguity in the words All persons born. That's incredibly clear. You can pretend to be the biggest Bingo in all the land and it won't change that.

Your feelings on the State of the country today have no bearing on who does and doesn't get to be a citizen. Nor should it. Sorry snowflake.

Wait which time do we have to give context to again? Back then when the law was written or today? You seem thoroughly confused. Your argument is the same one gun control advocates make about semiautomatic weapons today and the muskets that existed during the adoption of the 2nd.

No one had to enter the country illegally, they just entered. Everyone here is a descendant of an immigrant.

All predictable Democrat doublespeak. Birthright citizenship for people entering the country illegally is a scourge on this country and is directly hurting the poorest Americans. But all Democrats care about is votes.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Democrats allow their children born in the US to be automatic citizens

So, only Dems support the words of the Constitution?

Well, if you say so.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

All predictable Democrat doublespeak. Birthright citizenship for people entering the country illegally is a scourge on this country and is directly hurting the poorest Americans. But all Democrats care about is votes.

Then change the Constitution. You do not get to just ignore the parts you do not like

 

[Curried Goats]

All predictable Democrat doublespeak. Birthright citizenship for people entering the country illegally is a scourge on this country and is directly hurting the poorest Americans. But all Democrats care about is votes.

All persons is double speak? How much are you going to embarrass yourself you Bingo?

 

[Independent thinker]

So, only Dems support the words of the Constitution?

Well, if you say so.

As others have said, the intent of birthright citizenship had nothing to do with illegals coming here from Guatamala and Hondurus.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As others have said, the intent of birthright citizenship had nothing to do with illegals coming here from Guatamala and Hondurus.

Intent is irrelevant when the words are there for everyone to read.

Anti-gun folks say the intent of the 2nd was never for people to have AR15s.

They are dismissed as easily as you.

 

[surada]

I've read the entire Constitution and it's amendments. The 14th amendment is the most abused amendment of all because the wording was not specific enough. We did not have a bloated Federal government with massive social service programs in 1866. You have to examine the context of the time in which the amendment was written, they didn't have a crystal ball seeing hundreds of thousands of desperate people pouring into the country TAKING RESOURCES AWAY from poor American citizens. Birthright citizenship was never intended to be a carrot to entice these people to endanger themselves entering the country illegally.

What was the US population in 1866?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm so sick and tired of the lefty myth that illegals only come here because US employers give them jobs (only Republican businesses of course, not Democratic run businesses).

Illegals come here because:

Democrats are for open borders

Democrats have sanctuary cities and states

Democrats will let them have driver's licenses

Democrats will give them free room, board, and healthcare

Democrats let them vote in local elections

Democrats will give government benefits to the illegals and their children

AND

Democrats allow their children born in the US to be automatic citizens

Wrong.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy.

 

[TNHarley]

It's very clearly written.

And? Intent matters.

 

[surada]

And? Intent matters.

There's no reason to talk about "interpretation ".. it's perfectly clear. Immigration was wide open in 1866.