Today's lesson on "Birthright Citizenship". NO EUROPEAN COUNTRY ALLOWS IT.

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What’s “tough” about wanting to live in a clean, safe, productive English speaking likeminded community?

Racism ring a bell?

 

[Foxfyre]

The courts across this country have already ruled as to what it means. You are losing in every case and will lose all the way to the SCOTUS and waste a whole bunch of time and money, making lawyers rich!

Any law restricting citizenship beyond the 14th Amendment will likely be held unconstitutional. They aren't trying that route because Congress knows they cannot do it by law.

If you want birthright citizenship, you need an amendment giving Congress the right to legislate what citizenship means beyond what is included in the 14th Amendment. I happen to agree that illegals should not have that right, but I oppose doing by a new interpretation because another Supreme Court can simply undo it. Pass an amendment and they cannot do that!

How many illegals have had children in this country been denied citizenship since Trum's EO so far? Exactly zero! They are being born every day and being issued SSNs just like before, mainly because SS has no way of knowing the kids are illegals.

A rogue or unethical court will misinterpret the Constitution regardless of the original intent as we have seen time and time again over the years. I simply don't accept that we have to wait for the very tedious and years long process of a constitutional amendment to restore jus sanguinis as the law as the Founders intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you can't quote the words anywhere in the Constitution, it is not in there. A state passing a law restricting abortion is actually covered by the 10th Amendment. Is that what you meant instead?

No dear. The fact that the Constitution does not address abortion in any manner, the 10th Amendment automatically relegates any authority to regulate in in any way to the individual states.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A rogue or unethical court will misinterpret the Constitution regardless of the original intent as we have seen time and time again over the years. I simply don't accept that we have to wait for the very tedious and long process of a constitutional amendment to restore jus sanguinis as the law as the Founders intended.

Ok, so let's say magically the law is changed overnight for argument's sake. How will you enforce it?

Will everyone in the past have to prove their parent's citizenship, or just those born after a certain date? What is the cutoff date? Will the parents have to provide proof of citizenship at birth in order to receive a birth certificate? Will they have to provide proof in order to apply for an SSN that is automatically done by most hospitals today?

Be careful of the can of worms you open with vague language. That's what happened over time with the 14th Amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Racism ring a bell?

Specifically explain how "wanting to live in a clean, safe, productive English speaking likeminded community" is in any way racist.

Are you saying that only one race is capable of wanting that? How racist is that?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No dear. The fact that the Constitution does not address abortion in any manner, the 10th Amendment automatically relegates any authority to regulate in in any way to the individual states.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

If you could read, that is exactly what I said, meaning the right to an abortion is not in the Constitution as it is regulated by the states. Reading is fundamental.

That is essentially what the Dobbs ruling says.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ok, so let's say magically the law is changed overnight for argument's sake. How will you enforce it?

Will everyone in the past have to prove their parent's citizenship, or just those born after a certain date? What is the cutoff date? Will the parents have to provide proof of citizenship at birth in order to receive a birth certificate? Will they have to provide proof in order to apply for an SSN that is automatically done by most hospitals today?

Be careful of the can of worms you open with vague language. That's what happened over time with the 14th Amendment.

The law would have to spell out the rules for that. But basically I can say that the law will specify the criteria that would be used but it would basically be that only children born to a U.S. citizen are automatically a citizen. That would of course include children of parents who become naturalized citizens as has always been the case, i.e. the children do not have to go through the process of qualifying for citizenship as the parents do.

As for those already here, some path to citizenship might be made for the DACA people but not their parents or other kin. All that would have to be worked out.

While I can understand the heartbreak for some who have been here illegally for a long time to have to pull up stakes and leave the country, there is a side of me that rejects a concept that if you break a law long enough, then all can be forgiven.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The law would have to spell out the rules for that. But basically I can say that the law will specify the criteria that would be used but it would basically be that only children born to a U.S. citizen are automatically a citizen. That would of course include children of parents who become naturalized citizens as has always been the case, i.e. the children do not have to go through the process of qualifying for citizenship as the parents do.

As for those already here, some path to citizenship might be made for the DACA people but not their parents or other kin. All that would have to be worked out.

While I can understand the heartbreak for some who have been here illegally for a long time to have to pull up stakes and leave the country, there is a side of me that rejects a concept that if you break a law long enough, then all can be forgiven.

With due respect, you completely clutched on that answer. Congress needs constitutional authority to restrict the 14th Amendment by changing the Constitution itself. You basically provided a non-answer.

 

[Foxfyre]

With due respect, you completely clutched on that answer. Congress needs constitutional authority to restrict the 14th Amendment by changing the Constitution itself. You basically provided a non-answer.

I fully expect the Congress to pass a law that restores the intent of the 14th amendment, for President Trump to sign it into law, for it to be challenged by woke Democrats, and for SCOTUS to uphold the interpretation of the law as constitutional as Congress intended.

I can't make that any clearer than that.

I further expect the vast majority of Americans to so appreciate all that that so that no subsequent congress, at least in the next generation or two, would dare contest it.

 

[MarathonMike]

Well, so much for American exceptionalism...

FYI, Illegal immigration, chain migration and birthright citizenship are EXACTLY how the Democrats are working to bring down American Exceptionalism.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I fully expect the Congress to pass a law that restores the intent of the 14th amendment, for President Trump to sign it into law, for it to be challenged by woke Democrats, and for SCOTUS to uphold the interpretation of the law as constitutional as Congress intended.

I can't make that any clearer than that.

I further expect the vast majority of Americans to so appreciate all that that so that no subsequent congress, at least in the next generation or two, would dare contest it.

You expect wrong. What is the law going to say that doesn't conflict with the 14th Amendment, requiring the courts to declare it unconstitutional even if it were to pass? There are enough Constitutionalist Republicans who knows an amendment is needed to block any vote in the House and you know the Democrats will oppose it 100%. It would never get past a Senate filibuster either.

 

[daveman]

Your Majesty!

View attachment 1082836
Honored we are indeed.

So kind of you to show up here amongst the lowly hoi polloi.

It's disturbing how fascinated you are with my anus.

No, you may not have it.

 

[Moonglow]

FYI, Illegal immigration, chain migration and birthright citizenship are EXACTLY how the Democrats are working to bring down American Exceptionalism.

The funny thing is Reagan got it started.

 

[Foxfyre]

You expect wrong. What is the law going to say that doesn't conflict with the 14th Amendment, requiring the courts to declare it unconstitutional even if it were to pass? There are enough Constitutionalist Republicans who knows an amendment is needed to block any vote in the House and you know the Democrats will oppose it 100%. It would never get past a Senate filibuster either.

The law would follow the letter and original intent of the Constitution. Those of us who have studied the Constitution as well as the founding documents of the Constitution understand how SCOTUS can easily and entirely constitutionally agree that the 14th Amendment intended to overturn Dred Scot and afford full citizenship to freed slaves and their descendents and otherwise jus sanguinis would be the law of the land.

Mark Levin recently gave an excellent scholarly but down to earth explanation of that:

The TRUTH About 'Birthright Citizenship' That Democrats Don't Want You To Know

Mark Levin breaks down why birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is NOT supported by the U.S. Constitution or federal law. He explains that the 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act were never meant to deal with immigration and points out that the Supreme Court has never r

www.marklevinshow.com

 

[BrokeLoser]

Specifically explain how "wanting to live in a clean, safe, productive English speaking likeminded community" is in any way racist.

Are you saying that only one race is capable of wanting that? How racist is that?

Racism ring a bell?

Admiral…do you prefer to live in a dirty, dangerous, unproductive incompatible Spanish speaking community?
What do you think made the U.S. such an exceptional nation?

 

[multivita-man]

You don't have a birth certificate? Then you need to order one. In my mother's case, her birth certificate was in a Texas courthouse long before the age of computers and when she needed a certified birth certificate, the courthouse had burned down and none was available. So, she had to get affidavits from family members and other family records but they were able to re-create and certify a birth certificate for her.

Non-citizens get birth certificates, too. A birth certificate is just a certificate of live birth to record the fact that you are a living, breathing human that entered the world in some jurisdiction.

So again, replace birth citizenship with what?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Must be the 20th time this has been posted.

Yeah, and if you weren't such a Marxist boot licker it would be 20 times too few.
I guess human life is less important to you than ideology and redundancy.

 

[multivita-man]

The law would follow the letter and original intent of the Constitution. Those of us who have studied the Constitution as well as the founding documents of the Constitution understand how SCOTUS can easily and entirely constitutionally agree that the 14th Amendment intended to overturn Dred Scot and afford full citizenship to freed slaves and their descendents and otherwise jus sanguinis would be the law of the land.

The only way the SCOTUS can agree with your opinion is to ignore the plain language of the amendment and the Supreme Court decisions that affirmed birthright citizenship.

Mark Levin recently gave an excellent scholarly but down to earth explanation of that:

The TRUTH About 'Birthright Citizenship' That Democrats Don't Want You To Know

Mark Levin breaks down why birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is NOT supported by the U.S. Constitution or federal law. He explains that the 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act were never meant to deal with immigration and points out that the Supreme Court has never r

www.marklevinshow.com

Mark Levin giving scholarly explanations is like Hellen Keller teaching driver's ed.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

With due respect, you completely clutched on that answer. Congress needs constitutional authority to restrict the 14th Amendment by changing the Constitution itself. You basically provided a non-answer.

The concept of Right vs Wrong eludes this one ^^^
Men have adopted and accepted morally bankrupt LAWS many times throughout human history.

Good ethics doesn't come from the ink pens of legislators but rather from the hearts of good men.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The only way the SCOTUS can agree with your opinion is to ignore the plain language of the amendment and the Supreme Court decisions that affirmed birthright citizenship.

If the language was “plain” nobody would have grounds to question it.
This will be a case decided on intent…The intent is crystal clear to anyone not from a shithole to our south.