Born in the U.S. = American citizen, but not if Trump has his way

[Unkotare]

No, it's not.

Crawl out from under your rock and watch the news sometime, loser.

Thanks for that, but I do.

 

[Unkotare]

Anchors babies are unconstitutional and the practice needs for the invaders to go to the back of the line with their legal immigration application, plus they need to pay all the medical and transportation bills.

How can the Constitution be unconstitutional?

 

[Kondor3]

Time to MODIFY our INTERPRETATION of the 14th Amendment, to preclude automatic citizenship for Anchor Babies of the future...

Time to put an end to Beaners and Birth Tourists coming here, popping out a little of Anchor-Baby puppies, and digging into American soil like tics...

Nothing we can do about the Anchor Baby spawn already here, due to ex poste facto, etc...

But we can sure-as-hell remove that incentive (and reward) for sneaking into or illegally staying in the country, in future...

 

[kaz]

Anchors babies are unconstitutional and the practice needs for the invaders to go to the back of the line with their legal immigration application, plus they need to pay all the medical and transportation bills.

How can the Constitution be unconstitutional?

Again, where is that in the Constitution? Do you know what "enumerated" means?

 

[Conservative65]

Time to MODIFY our INTERPRETATION of the 14th Amendment, to preclude automatic citizenship for Anchor Babies of the future...

Time to put an end to Beaners and Birth Tourists coming here, popping out a little of Anchor-Baby puppies, and digging into American soil like tics...

That's damn sure what it is since the intention of the wording was NEVER to allow the offspring of an illegal to be a citizen.

 

[Conservative65]

Anchors babies are unconstitutional and the practice needs for the invaders to go to the back of the line with their legal immigration application, plus they need to pay all the medical and transportation bills.

How can the Constitution be unconstitutional?

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) compared to Brown v. Board of Education (1954). You figure it out.

 

[Kondor3]

Time to MODIFY our INTERPRETATION of the 14th Amendment, to preclude automatic citizenship for Anchor Babies of the future...

Time to put an end to Beaners and Birth Tourists coming here, popping out a little of Anchor-Baby puppies, and digging into American soil like tics...

That's damn sure what it is since the intention of the wording was NEVER to allow the offspring of an illegal to be a citizen.

Yep... the US Constitution is routinely subjected to re-interpretation in any number of focal areas...

Time to conjure-up some juicy rationalizations for re-examining and re-interpreting the 14th in this context...

Should be a lot of fun, once the political hacks get the hang of it...

 

[Cellblock2429]

A little history lesson for your Libtards. The original intent of the 14th Amendment: Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

 

[pinqy]

But we can sure-as-hell remove that incentive (and reward) for sneaking into or illegally staying in the country, in future...

What incentive and reward is that? Sneaking or illegally staying, having a child here, and then 21 years later that child can sponsor you for citizenship? You'll have to convince me how that's a reward or incentive.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

A little history lesson for your Libtards. The original intent of the 14th Amendment: Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

All that changed in 1898 when the Supremes handed down their decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark ! That is some history, also!

 

[pinqy]

But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

The Burlingame Treaty of 1968

Article VI

Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And, reciprocally, Chinese subjects visiting or residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained may be held to confer naturalization upon citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States.

The Naturalization Law of 1802 was in effect at that time (and like the Act of 1790, restricted naturalization to free Whites).
And then in 1870 there was the Naturalization Act of 1870 which extends naturalization to those of African decent (but not Asians or other non-Whites).

And the precursor of the 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was vetoed by President Johnson, who stated:
"It may also be asked whether it is necessary that they should be declared citizens in order that they may be secured in the enjoyment of the civil rights proposed to be conferred by the bill. Those rights are, by Federal as well as State laws, secured to all domiciled aliens and foreigners, even before the completion of the process of naturalization; and it may safely be assumed that the same enactments are sufficient to give like protection and benefits to those for whom this bill provides special legislation."

So Johnson clearly thought there was an immigration policy.

 

[Correll]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

What part are you not understanding?

Babies born to foreign parents are citizens of their parents nations, not America.

 

[Unkotare]

Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?

• 14th Amendment
  "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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  
  
• Statelessness
  • The Human Rights of Stateless Persons

What part are you not understanding?

Babies born to foreign parents are citizens of their parents nations, not America.

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. All this arguing does not change in any way the FACT that many babies were born in many parts of the US to many kinds of parents today and EVERY one of them is a US citizen; every bit as much and every bit as legitimately and fully a true and legal US citizen as anyone posting on this thread. A true, legal, indisputable FACT.

If some people think the Constitution should be amended, get to work trying to see it happen; but all the typing, harping, hating, and disrespecting that may be posted here won't change a thing.

 

[BettyYeti]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

There are a few exceptions.

 

[Unkotare]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

There are a few exceptions.

Obviously.

 

[BettyYeti]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

There are a few exceptions.

Obviously.

1. It's not just in the U.S., we own other places as well. 2. You never mentioned exceptions.

 

[Kondor3]

But we can sure-as-hell remove that incentive (and reward) for sneaking into or illegally staying in the country, in future...

What incentive and reward is that? Sneaking or illegally staying, having a child here, and then 21 years later that child can sponsor you for citizenship? You'll have to convince me how that's a reward or incentive.

Incentive = your brats get to stay here, or come back later, even if you can't.

Reward = your scheme to stay here on humanitarian grounds, by popping out a litter of pups (Anchor Babies) on US soil, is realized

Re-interpret the 14th so as to eliminate that incentive and reward, and they'll stop coming across the border.

----------------------

Next slide, please.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Trump has proposed ending birthright citizenship. Okay...more nations haven't got that policy than do have that policy. So it's not as though it couldn't be implemented. But how far do we want to go with this?”

Further proof that Trump is an ignorant bigot.

The notion that citizens born in the United States should have their citizenship denied them for no other reason than the condition of their parents is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional and wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

Those who cannot discuss this topic without demonstrating a fundamental disrespect for life itself clearly have no political view beyond base, un-American hatred.

 

[Flash]

Question for you stupid confused Moon Bats.

How can we allow illegal bitches to circumvent the immigration laws of this country by swimming across the Rio Grande and dumping a filthy ass anchor baby onto the American welfare system? Are you stupid or something?