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

[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.

.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:
I suppose one either accepts the Constitution as a "living document" or one demands that every stinking thing that comes up be expressly handled.

• Constitutional Value Judgments and Interpretive Theory Choice
  
• http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/27/point-the-constitution-is-a-living-document/
  
• Constitutional Flexibility
  
• Conflicts of Interest and the Constitution
  
• The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The ONLY intent of that part of the 14th Amendment was to declare former slaves once considered property and not people under the Dred Scott decision citizens. Black slaves were denied citizenship because they were black slaves.

The ones that misuse the 14th today for the anchor baby mindset are the same dumbasses that think the 15th amendment granted blacks the right to vote.

 

[Conservative65]

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!

So the Supreme Court read INTO the Constitution something that those writing the amendment never intended to be done? Got it.

 

[initforme]

I was born in the us. I no longer fly the flag and believe our political system is scummy. COME get me. You cant

 

[kaz]

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

So ... if I care about people, I think that if someone swims across a river breaking the law into their neighboring country and thinks they are therefore legitimately a citizen of that country, and if I don't agree then I hate people and I'm un-American and full of hatred.

Wow ... you're seriously a complete and utter moron

 

[Conservative65]

I was born in the us. I no longer fly the flag and believe our political system is scummy. COME get me. You cant

I suggest you leave.

 

[initforme]

I should no longer be a citizen. LMAO off.

 

[initforme]

Wittle conservative i am here...for you...lol lol lol

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Red:
I suppose one either accepts the Constitution as a "living document" or one demands that every stinking thing that comes up be expressly handled.

• Constitutional Value Judgments and Interpretive Theory Choice
  
• http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/06/27/point-the-constitution-is-a-living-document/
  
• Constitutional Flexibility
  
• Conflicts of Interest and the Constitution
  
• The Living Constitution | University of Chicago Law School

It is a living document. That's proven by the founders putting in a formal method to change it. Saying you think it means something those that actually wrote portions in it you don't like doesn't fit that concept. That's the bullshit argument used by those that want the judicial branch to act like the legislative branch and that damn sure wasn't what the founders intended.

 

[Conservative65]

Wittle conservative i am here...for you...lol lol lol

You also said "come get me. You can't". All I need to know is where to come.

 

[initforme]

Cmon wittle con thats all you got?

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

I should no longer be a citizen. LMAO off.

What is your race?

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

Human Rights? Check the Mexican Constitution and get back to US.

 

[initforme]

White. 78 years old. Owned 2 businesses. The people i hired were like family. Something other employers should think about.

 

[initforme]

Retired now. Dont care how things pan out but sure is fun to ruffle feathers.

 

[initforme]

At 78 i can still bench 350. Not bad for an old fart. Invincible. An island. Got mine and worked for it.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So the Supreme Court read INTO the Constitution something that those writing the amendment never intended to be done? Got it.

No! What you got is bullshit impersonating reasoning skills and knowledge!

It is a living document. That's proven by the founders putting in a formal method to change it. Saying you think it means something those that actually wrote portions in it you don't like doesn't fit that concept. That's the bullshit argument used by those that want the judicial branch to act like the legislative branch and that damn sure wasn't what the founders intended.

The Constitution has nothing in common with any sort of organism, living or dead. It is a Social Contract which can be amended via Article V or through the checks and balance mechanisms incorporated within by those Brilliant Framers of the Great Contract! You're ignorance is showing below you skirt, precious!

 

[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.

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.

It was a court ruling that changed the focus of that amendment from children of slaves to children of illegals.

A court ruling or a law, can change it back.


Some shitty Mexican sneaking into the country and giving birth is giving birth to a mexican, not an American.

 

[Correll]

Anyone born in the US is a US citizen.

There are a few exceptions.

Obviously.

So, you accept the principle.