protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,160
- 18,363
- 2,250
In Trump's first year after re-elected, birthright citizenship for kids of illegal aliens will be eliminated . We can come back and revisit this page then. November 2021.Legend in your own mind...too funny.When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.![]()
I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole
I will just say that I just flat out disagree with you. I don't care what some judge somewhere judged. Any judgement giving citizenship to kids of illegal aliens, should be overruled and discarded.But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen. Children of foreigners are not included.Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights". And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights. Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.
Citizenship, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and in turn is entitled to its protection. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right. I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary
Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
Human Rights
Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.
Civil Rights
Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.
14th Amendment
1: 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.
Your post is absolute bullshit. By the numbers
1) Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment
Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment
3) Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)
4) Civil rights are government created rights
What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw
See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From? They are all man made law, NOT unalienable Rights
5) Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 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."
A) A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment citizen. They get certain privileges and immunities
B) Under the 14th Amendment EVERY person (as differentiated from a citizen) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.
So, every person is entitled to government granted Life, Liberty and Property and citizens get additional privileges and immunities
6) Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY unalienable Rights. The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights. The terminology of Right, Rights, or unalienable Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment
7) Unalienable Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, absolute, God given, and above the law by the courts. Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.
END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.
At least, this is the law. Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.
BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)
Under the Constitution the 14th Amendment gives to all persons born in or naturalized in the United States the privilege of citizenship. Before you waste time arguing the point, I accidentally argued it in court and won. You're welcome to come to the house and read the case... and no it's not online because the U.S. government, the county Dept. of Human Services, a foreign government, nor the parents of the child in question appealed the decision.
Kids born in US to undocumented are citizens
I'm well aware of your argument, but it is bogus. IF your argument had been challenged three generations ago, it might have had some basis, but with 5 million plus 14th Amendment citizens, and some of them being police officers, soldiers, scientists, and people with high level security clearances, the courts will never see it your way no matter how sincere you believe in your cause.
IF undocumented foreigners were not subject to the jurisdiction, ICE could never take them into custody because if you lack jurisdiction you cannot arrest someone and take them to court. Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction.
It does not matter what the original intent of the Constitution is. I'll bet you ain't bitching because you cannot own a fully automatic weapon in many states and NOBODY can legally convert their weapons any longer. Original intent don't mean shit. That's just a fact. Once the courts have ruled, your ONLY remedy now would be a constitutional Amendment.
Original intent means everything. If it didn't, the Constitution would have no meaning. Howard defined it no kids of foreigners. That way in 1866. That way now. You see it your way.
I see it mine. Cool how these debate forums work. We're lucky we have this freedom.
YOU ARE NOT DISAGREEING WITH ME. Get that through your head. My view is that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified to begin with, so I don't give a rip about it one way or another.
Part 2 is that If the people who wrote the Amendment meant for it to say something specific, it had to be done when they wrote the law
Part 3 - The courts get to interpret what the law means. It is the way our system of jurisprudence works. NOBODY can over-rule the courts. Once the gavel falls in the United States Supreme Court, no popularity vote; no amount of outrage; no lying ass politician can change the bottom line. You can petition the United States Supreme Court again - which unconstitutional as HELL, but both sides see the Constitution as a burden OR you can amend the Constitution. That is it
Part 4 - I argue gun Rights based upon original intent. The difference is, the earliest courts interpreted the Second Amendment consistent with original intent. The earliest courts did not buy your argument relative to immigration. Consequently, your avenue of redress is to argue your position before the United States Supreme Court OR amend the Constitution
Part 5 - As a Christian I can only implore you that any change done via unholy means is destined to fail
Part 6 - Since what you want to be true is not the way you see it, your problem and differences are not with me. As someone who worked in law (and I was even a Justice of the Peace once), politics and legal discourse are very different discussions. Did it ever dawn on you that both the Ds and the Rs are allowing you to chase your tail so that nothing of substance ever gets done?
Part 7 - You do not look down the road with critical thinking skills, realizing that sometimes the same law that bites you in the ass is the same one that saves it. You have never looked down the road to see what might happen if Congress every did skew the law in favor, in the manner you want to achieve the results. Voltaire once remarked:
"I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one."
In under ten paragraphs I have ended this dispute.