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

[Unkotare]

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.

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

What statute are you talking about?

 

[Billiejeens]

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

That is not true IRL.

 

[Billiejeens]

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

By an interpretation of a Constitutional Amendment -

That is correct.

 

[Curried Goats]

By an interpretation of a Constitutional Amendment -

That is correct.

Which is kind of all that matters isn't it? Who gives a shit of you don't feel we're citizens when the people in power do? Might makes right Snowflake.

 

[Unkotare]

That is not true IRL.

Yes it is.

 

[CowboyTed]

If you don't know you're breaking any laws, HTF can they charge you with anything you moron? In our country you can't just use he broke the law, you have to prove he broke the law. If I tell police you robbed a bank, they don't arrest you. They have to come up with evidence you robbed the bank.

If somebody is hired using false documentation, HTF is the employer supposed to know it's fake? Then you have leftist judges that have allowed lawsuits to go through by illegals who were not hired due to their illegal status.

The real solution to getting rid of illegals is getting rid of leftists first.

So you are blaming false documentation...

Well the burden of proof is then on the employer... He is breaking the law hiring them so he has to show proof that he took reasonable steps to not break the law... That is why companies take copies of peoples various documentation...

Under your premise that if someone ends up operating on a person in the hospital with no qualifications. The hospital is fully in the clear when they say the guy gave us false documentation and we kept no copy of it... Under your premise the Hospital has no liability..

 

[Kruska]

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

When you stated: Black, white, brown or purple, they’re almost all poor, and mostly married. And half of them were using birth control when they got pregnant.

The rest of your post is the usual lefty/lib&green parasitic mindset - pushing the responsibility of ones own irresponsible actions onto others.

 

[Billiejeens]

Which is kind of all that matters isn't it? Who gives a shit of you don't feel we're citizens when the people in power do? Might makes right Snowflake.

You do know that just about everything is open to interpretation, right?

Maybe you don't understand the discussion.
Nobody is talking about feelers.

People are discussing whether or not a Constitutional Amendment is being properly applied.
That to some degree requires higher level thinking.

Some are discussing feelers of course.
Those are the simpletons.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, the 14th is properly applied. No 'birthright' negation by legislation is possible.

 

[Billiejeens]

Yes it is.

Maybe you simply don't know what it means.

 

[Frankenstein]

Math isn't racist dumb dumb.

Maybe, but you are!

 

[Curried Goats]

You do know that just about everything is open to interpretation, right?

Maybe you don't understand the discussion.
Nobody is talking about feelers.

People are discussing whether or not a Constitutional Amendment is being properly applied.
That to some degree requires higher level thinking.

Some are discussing feelers of course.
Those ae the simpletons.

That some disagree is a given according to you. After all that's the nature of things that are open to interpretation, no? My question to you is why should I give a shit about your interpretation when your culture has been so thoroughly cucked that the possibility of your interpretation becoming law at this moment is currently zero?

 

[Curried Goats]

Maybe, but you are!

 

[Billiejeens]

Yes, the 14th is properly applied. No 'birthright' negation by legislation is possible.

Only settled, until it is not.

See Dobs V Jackson
See Plessy V Ferguson.

 

[Frankenstein]

Racist

 

[Unkotare]

Maybe you simply don't know what it means.

I sure do.

 

[Curried Goats]

Racist

 

[Billiejeens]

That some disagree is a given according to you. After all that's the nature of things that are open to interpretation, no? My question to you is why should I give a shit about your interpretation when your culture has been so thoroughly cucked that the possibility of your interpretation becoming law at this moment is currently zero?

What you believe has no effect on me.
None.

You are acting like the simps that thought that Roe was 4-ever!

 

[Billiejeens]

I sure do.

Can you explain it?