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

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

  • Yes

  • No

  • Unsure

  • Other


Results are only viewable after voting.
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.

not if you think someone born here should be denied citizenship

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.
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.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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

Forum List

Back
Top