Why wouldn’t legitimate politicians introduce a Bill to end birthright citizenship?

[Billiejeens]

None. The US has jurisdiction... whether you are a tourist, businessman, on a student visa or illegal alien.

What is your point?

 

[dblack]

It's not a policy, it's a constitutional protection.

Mkay. Hair split.

That's like asking why we bother protecting free speech today.

It is. And there are good reasons to protect free speech. Are there good reasons for birthright citizenship? I'm not seeing it.

The legal foundation is that it's a stupid idea to allow politicians to decide who gets to be a citizen. That's sort of the antithesis of inalienable, natural rights.

Rights don't depend on citizenship. Our Constitution prohibits government from violating anyone's rights, not just citizens.

Would you be comfortable with the Democrats getting to decide who was and wasn't a citizen of they had enough federal power?

If they followed the proper legislative process, sure, why not? Outside of the birthright thing, which would require repealing or amending the 14th amendment, that's how it works now.

Naturalization Power: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Curried Goats]

We had worse disparities and worse racism from 1865 until the early sixties without them trying to commit genocide on themselves. It was only after the Democrats encouraged tribalism as a way to win elections, and Roe v Wade started the mass killing of black babies that we started to go in the direction that we are going.

Having had worse racism and economic disparities previously doesn't mean racism and socio-economic disparities aren't at fault for the disparities we see today. One has no bearing on the other than one possibly being a more subdued continuation of the other. That's just basic reasoning. I'm not surprised you missed that.

Also its infantilizing to suggest Black people have been tricked into seeking abortions as if they have no agency or minds of their owns. But that's par for the course where your brand of cowardly racism is concerned. It is what makes you all cucks. If you weren't already neutered and house broken you wouldn't shy away from your obvious racism.

You pick the words, I know what you mean. You hate whitey you feel entitled to hate whitey.

I believe whitey was your word. I've always been clear that my disrespect and lack of empathy is only for cuck (read that as racist) whites.

And guess what? You have every right to do that and say that. One of the many reasons that you fled the black Run Country you were born in. I'm sure that your IQ is higher than the average jamaican. You can always tell the smartest foreigners, because they're the ones that come here.

And I can always tell the Dipshit cuck whites because they're afraid of being replaced but they have no strategy to stop it. Imagine being a demographic, a cultural and an economic majority and still getting taken over largely by your own apathy and inaction. Could there be any bigger cucks in the world than American cuck whites?

 

[Curried Goats]

Mkay. Hair split.

It is. And there are good reasons to protect free speech. Are there good reasons for birthright citizenship? I'm not seeing it.

Rights don't depend on citizenship. Our Constitution prohibits government from violating anyone's rights, not just citizens.

If they followed the proper legislative process, sure, why not? Outside of the birthright thing, which would require repealing or amending the 14th amendment, that's how it works now.

Naturalization Power: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

Do you not recognize the obvious incongruity of both arguing to weaken constitutional protections and then suggesting you'd rely on constitutional protections? Fuck why am I asking? Of course you're too stupid to recognize it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

This cuck racist prompt collapses all on its own.

 

[dblack]

Do you not recognize the obvious incongruity of both arguing to weaken constitutional protections and then suggesting you'd rely on constitutional protections? Fuck why am I asking? Of course you're too stupid to recognize it.

What right is birthright citizenship protecting? It was introduced to deal with slaves, who were being denied citizenship after slavery was abolished - which the country rightly rejected as a really shitty way to treat ex-slaves. But anchor babies aren't ex-slaves. They're just a loophole in the naturalization process.

I'm still not seeing any moral or philosophical justification for the policy. I guess that's because I'm too stupid.

 

[Kruska]

None. The US has jurisdiction... whether you are a tourist, businessman, on a student visa or illegal alien.

You are obviously confusing US laws with US jurisdiction.

e.g. The US has the jurisdiction to handle a case onto a persons citizenship, born in the USA
However US laws will decide onto a persons valid claims towards obtaining US citizenship. - see anchor babies.

 

[surada]

You are obviously confusing US laws with US jurisdiction.

e.g. The US has the jurisdiction to handle a case onto a persons citizenship, born in the USA
However US laws will decide onto a persons valid claims towards obtaining US citizenship.

US law is jurisdiction. If you aren't the child of a diplomat and you are born on US soil, you're a citizen at birth.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Constitution is clear: you are a citizen if you are born here and not the product of a diplomatic mission.

No federal legislation can even be introduced to change that.

 

[surada]

The Constitution is clear: you are a citizen if you are born here and not the product of a diplomatic mission.

No federal legislation can even be introduced to change that.

The problem is the lack of education.

 

[Billiejeens]

What right is birthright citizenship protecting? It was introduced to deal with slaves, who were being denied citizenship after slavery was abolished - which the country rightly rejected as a really shitty way to treat ex-slaves. But anchor babies aren't ex-slaves. They're just a loophole in the naturalization process.

I'm still not seeing any moral or philosophical justification for the policy. I guess because I'm too stupid.

It is an intentional misuse of the amendment.

The people who refuse to see that are the same ones who would freak out if "shall not be infringed" meant shall not be infringed all the way up to nuclear wrapons.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

So children born in the US wouldn't be US citizens? What citizenship would they hold?

The citizenship of their parents.

 

[Curried Goats]

What right is birthright citizenship protecting?

All of them you moron. Kind of hard to have a first amendment right after the political party you're against wins power, decides you're no longer a citizen, and deports your ass.

It was introduced to deal with slaves, who were being denied citizenship after slavery was abolished - which the country rightly rejected as a really shitty way to treat ex-slaves. But anchor babies aren't ex-slaves. They're just a loophole in the naturalization process.

Take it up with the people who wrote it. It doesn't make any note of anchor babies.

I'm still not seeing any moral or philosophical justification for the policy. I guess because I'm too stupid.

I was offering up legal justifications, morality and philosophy are subjective which makes them empty as justifications go. They carry as much weight as any assholes opinion.

 

[Curried Goats]

You are obviously confusing US laws with US jurisdiction.

e.g. The US has the jurisdiction to handle a case onto a persons citizenship, born in the USA
However US laws will decide onto a persons valid claims towards obtaining US citizenship. - see anchor babies.

It has jurisdiction over laws regarding naturalization. Anyone born here is protected by the constitution. Stop being stupid.

 

[Concerned American]

Fine with me. Pick the other one.

I was born abroad in a military family so I have a bit of knowledge of the topic and I don't disagree with your premise. I was just trying to point out that it isn't quite as simple as just rescinding birthright citizenship. In the case I just suggested, it opens the door to dual citizenship which I believe should be absolutely illegal. Naturalized citizens take an oath to be American citizens only, but there seems to be a loophole that AFTER they become US citizens, they can reinstate their former country's citizenship--Mexico allows this. I don't know how this problem could be addressed.

 

[Kruska]

US law is jurisdiction. If you aren't the child of a diplomat and you are born on US soil, you're a citizen at birth.

No you are wrong - also in regards to "only diplomat"

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

www.cairco.org

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.

If the mother is not a US citizen, according to US law - the US does not have jurisdiction - but the country of the mother.
In order for a foreign person to travel to the USA - usually one needs a visa - the visa application also beholds the question towards an existing pregnancy, if wrongfully answered the child born in the USA is automatically treated according to US law as an illegal alien - respectively NOT being under US jurisdiction.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

 

[Billiejeens]

No you are wrong - also in regards to "only diplomat"

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

www.cairco.org

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.

If the mother is not a US citizen, according to US law - the US does not have jurisdiction - but the country of the mother.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

All the facts in the world,
All the proper explanations of those facts in the world,
Are not going to make people who are not used to critical thinking, understand.

 

[surada]

No you are wrong - also in regards to "only diplomat"

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | CAIRCO Report - Concerned Americans, our Constitution, our Independent Republic | immigration, sustainability, western civilization, globalism, demographics, great replacement

www.cairco.org

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.

If the mother is not a US citizen, according to US law - the US does not have jurisdiction - but the country of the mother.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Read the statute. Your author is trying to say the mother's citizenship has jurisdiction. He's wrong. As the law stands the US has jurisdiction because the birth is on US soil.

 

[surada]

All the facts in the world,
All the proper explanations of those facts in the world,
Are not going to make people who are not used to critical thinking, understand.

True. Critical thinking skills would help you understand the statute.

 

[Dragonlady]

Which part of 50% is it that YOU don't understand? - there is absolutely no failure-rate of 50% amongst contraceptives - go and fool someone else.

Condoms: Effectiveness, Types, and Proper Use

Condoms are a popular form of male birth control that uses the barrier method of contraception. Learn more about the effectiveness, types, and proper use of condoms.

www.webmd.com

male condoms are about 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. This means that in one year, 2 out of every 100 women whose partners always use condoms correctly will get pregnant.

Right, let's be really clear about what lefty/libs&greens have been doing to society since 45 years.
Reject authority in general, reject morals and cultural standards that don't fit into their agenda and push responsibility for own actions always onto others.

Propagate that the legal age for sex - needs to be dropped down to 14 and consuming pot and alcohol in public for minors is great as well, After-all times are changing - right?
Due to a total lack in moral standards and utter rejection towards taking personal responsibility - we end up with millions of brainless idiots humping and bumping around - just wanting fun, and too stupid and ignorant to take precautions and end up with millions seeking refuge in abortion.

The magic formula that needs to be hammered into ALL lefties/libs&greens is: "take responsibility for your own actions" and stop laying blame onto those who do. Or even better pay up yourself for your own "preferred culture style" and reject government aid and help from those who actually work for a living and a state who's authority you continuously try to dismantle, if it doesn't financially subsidize your pathetic, and parasitic lifestyle.

Where did I suggest a 50% failure rate in contraception??

There are 72.7 Women of reproductive age in the USA, 46 million of whom are sexually active and do not wish to become pregnant. Yet there are only 3.7 million live births in the USA each year, and 1 million abortions. I think we can safely assume that the majority of the live births were planned or intentional pregnancies and that the majority of the abortions were unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. That means that out of 72.7 million women, and even allowing for a 30% miscarriage rate, that fewer than 7 million of those women became pregnant at all.

If 85% of couples who don't use birth control will get pregnant in any given year, the fact that 90% of women of child bearing age, don't get pregnant at all in any year indicates that women are using birth control, and very effectively.

But the statistics on who does and does not use birth control always comes back to income, education, and insurance. The same factors that indicate who gets abortion. What a difference having insurance makes:

• Among sexually active women not seeking pregnancy, 81% of those with no insurance coverage used contraceptives, as did 87% of those covered by Medicaid and 90% of those covered by private health insurance.

Contraceptive Use in the United States by Demographics

www.guttmacher.org

Notice how often, the same churches which oppose abortion, also oppose birth control as well. The less religious you are, the more likely you are to use birth control.

I have also seen studies which indicate that schools with mandatory sex education classes, have the lowest rates of pregnancy.

More comprehensive sex education reduced teen births: Quasi-experimental evidence

Sex education for youth in the United States has been the topic of considerable debate among researchers, policy makers, and the public at large. In this study, we focus attention on federal funding for more comprehensive sex education that was received ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Study Finds that Comprehensive Sex Education Reduces Teen Pregnancy | ACLU

Schools and states with "abstinence only" sex education, have higher rates of teen pregnancy.

Abstinence Education Programs: Definition, Funding, and Impact on Teen Sexual Behavior

This factsheet reviews the types of sex education models and state policies surrounding them, the major sources of federal funding for both abstinence and safer sex education, and summarizes the re…

www.kff.org

Linking Religion and Teen Pregnancy: There's a Map for That - TheHumanist.com

Everyone’s heard the old saw: “Don’t close the stable door after the horse has bolted.” Sadly, it provides an excellent introduction to the shocking state of sex education in US public schools, and the wide degree to which its quality varies based on where one’s school is. For example, the...

thehumanist.com

Yet right wing religious groups are still telling their flocks that abstinence only programs work, and sex education increases teen pregnancies.