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

[g5000]

Those European immigrants are bringing their diseases and making America dirtier!

 

[Unkotare]

Anchor babies, ....

No such thing.

 

[busybee01]

I know Democrats cringe at the thought of such a Bill but aren’t politicians supposed to protect Americans and not Mexico’s people?
Could a Bill such as this have any negative affect on REAL American’s?

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution. Bills do not override the Constitution.

 

[g5000]

 

[dblack]

Let's build a wall to keep out...the Chinks!


]

I'm sure not a build-the-wall person. I'm one of those idealists who believes that immigrants are the backbone of the American experiment.

But I don't see why birthright citizenship is a necessary, or even desirable, component of a sane immigration policy. And if amending it would help us build consensus on immigration policy, it seems like a win.

 

[g5000]

"The floodgates are open. The bars are down. The sally-ports are unguarded. The dam is washed away. The sewer is unchoked. Europe is vomiting! In other words, the scum of immigration is viscerating upon our shores.” - Newspaper editor, 1890


Same bullshit, different century.

 

[g5000]

I'm sure not a build-the-wall person. I'm one of those idealists who believes that immigrants are the backbone of the American experiment.

But I don't see why birthright citizenship is a necessary, or even desirable, component of a sane immigration policy. And if amending it would help us build consensus on immigration policy, it seems like a win.

Our birth rate is declining. For our economy to survive and thrive, we need immigrants.

There are ten million open jobs in America right now.

 

[busybee01]

Don't need a bill
Need a court case to get to SCOTUS where they can correct the inappropriate way the 14th amendment has been used.

It is as plain as day to anyone who can read. The current interpretation is the correct one.

 

[busybee01]

The reason is purely political. Even if a politician wanted to do it (It was something that Donald Trump campaigned on), it is very controversial matter, and every major news outlet in the country (POSSIBLY excepting Fox News) would immediately brand the sponsor(s) of such legislation bigots, xenophobes, flat-earthers and anything else they could think of.

Despite Leftist assertions to the contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT sanction birthright citizenship, and in fact there are no Supreme Court opinions on point. Hence it could easily be eliminated by Congress with appropriate legislation. It would take a Republican Congress and President to pull it off, and it would probably have to EXCLUDE anyone who was born in the U.S. prior to enactment of the law.

The following text comes from the Fourteenth Amendment:

"All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." The words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were intended to exclude the children of foreign diplomats. Leftists simply gloss over those words and deem them meaningless. But they apply directly to children of illegals who are - ta daa! - subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country.

If they are born in this country then they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US as this is their home country. Apparently you flunked English.

 

[busybee01]

It doesn't

Yes it does.

 

[g5000]

The reason is purely political. Even if a politician wanted to do it (It was something that Donald Trump campaigned on), it is very controversial matter, and every major news outlet in the country (POSSIBLY excepting Fox News) would immediately brand the sponsor(s) of such legislation bigots, xenophobes, flat-earthers and anything else they could think of.

Despite Leftist assertions to the contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT sanction birthright citizenship, and in fact there are no Supreme Court opinions on point. Hence it could easily be eliminated by Congress with appropriate legislation. It would take a Republican Congress and President to pull it off, and it would probably have to EXCLUDE anyone who was born in the U.S. prior to enactment of the law.

The following text comes from the Fourteenth Amendment:

"All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." The words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were intended to exclude the children of foreign diplomats. Leftists simply gloss over those words and deem them meaningless. But they apply directly to children of illegals who are - ta daa! - subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country.

See post 305. You're wrong, and the congressional record proves you are wrong.

 

[surada]

The reason is purely political. Even if a politician wanted to do it (It was something that Donald Trump campaigned on), it is very controversial matter, and every major news outlet in the country (POSSIBLY excepting Fox News) would immediately brand the sponsor(s) of such legislation bigots, xenophobes, flat-earthers and anything else they could think of.

Despite Leftist assertions to the contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT sanction birthright citizenship, and in fact there are no Supreme Court opinions on point. Hence it could easily be eliminated by Congress with appropriate legislation. It would take a Republican Congress and President to pull it off, and it would probably have to EXCLUDE anyone who was born in the U.S. prior to enactment of the law.

The following text comes from the Fourteenth Amendment:

"All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." The words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were intended to exclude the children of foreign diplomats. Leftists simply gloss over those words and deem them meaningless. But they apply directly to children of illegals who are - ta daa! - subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country.

The mother's home country has no jurisdiction in the US.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Poor women have always suffered from lack of birth control and unwanted pregnancies or multiple miscarriages. The old cemeteries are full of them.

Uh-huh.

Do you have free condoms?

www.plannedparenthood.org

 

[dblack]

Our birth rate is declining. For our economy to survive and thrive, we need immigrants.

There are ten million open jobs in America right now.

But those are arguments for why it isn't necessary. We should streamline legal immigration and drop birthright citizenship. It would be a win-win.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution. Bills do not override the Constitution.

What about all those gun control bills?

surada

 

[surada]

The reason is purely political. Even if a politician wanted to do it (It was something that Donald Trump campaigned on), it is very controversial matter, and every major news outlet in the country (POSSIBLY excepting Fox News) would immediately brand the sponsor(s) of such legislation bigots, xenophobes, flat-earthers and anything else they could think of.

Despite Leftist assertions to the contrary, the Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT sanction birthright citizenship, and in fact there are no Supreme Court opinions on point. Hence it could easily be eliminated by Congress with appropriate legislation. It would take a Republican Congress and President to pull it off, and it would probably have to EXCLUDE anyone who was born in the U.S. prior to enactment of the law.

The following text comes from the Fourteenth Amendment:

"All persons born... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." The words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were intended to exclude the children of foreign diplomats. Leftists simply gloss over those words and deem them meaningless. But they apply directly to children of illegals who are - ta daa! - subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country.

The mother's home country has no jurisdiction in the US.

But those are arguments for why it isn't necessary. We should streamline legal immigration and drop birthright citizenship. It would be a win-win.

You don't understand what jurisdiction involves.

 

[g5000]

But those are arguments for why it isn't necessary. We should streamline legal immigration and drop birthright citizenship. It would be a win-win.

We definitely need immigration reform. What few remaining conservatives there are in Congress have been trying to do so for decades.

When Republican Whip Eric Cantor attempted to get immigration reform passed, he was primaried out of office.

Bush hit a brick wall with immigration reform.

These days, if anyone even mentions immigration reform, they are called RINOs.

The whole birthright citizenship debate is just an extension of that bigotry. It's a trigger for bigots to keep them outraged.

 

[dblack]

We definitely need immigration reform. What few remaining conservatives there are in Congress have been trying to do so for decades.

When Republican Whip Eric Cantor attempted to get immigration reform passed, he was primaried out of office.

Bush hit a brick wall with immigration reform.

These days, if anyone even mentions immigration reform, they are called RINOs.

The whole birthright citizenship debate is just an extension of that bigotry. It's a trigger for bigots to keep them outraged.

I suppose. But still, when the question is raised, I don't see a strong justification.

BL is the scum at the bottom of the barrel. But on this issue, I think he has a point.

 

[g5000]

I suppose. But still, when the question is raised, I don't see a strong justification.

BL is the scum at the bottom of the barrel. But on this issue, I think he has a point.

Think it through. Are you going to deport a kid who has never been to another country?

Even Trump, in one of his saner moments, found that to be ridiculous.

Birthright citizenship is one of the things which makes us exceptional.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The Know-Nothing bigots like you were opposed to non-English speaking Europeans being allowed to enter America. They wanted only Anglo-Saxons.

Good thing we didn't pay them any heed, eh?

Different century, same bullshit.

It’s so bizarre that you “we must keep progressing” leftist globalists can’t seem to progress your way out of those times when America was building, growing and PROGRESSING….the times before welfare and when assimilation was demanded. You’re stuck centuries back.
There’s a huge difference between the needed euro migrants of old and the undesirable taxpayer dependent criminal minded illiterate thirdworlders of today. We have plenty of journeyman lawn mowers, plenty of pregnant 39 year old Guadalupes working the McDonalds drive through trying to care for her litter of five at home on a teenagers wage.
I thought you hated disparities? Why do you insist on recruiting a never-ending underclass of filth? We can’t get ahead and out-run your globalist desires.
Why won’t you allow America to PROGRESS? Why is every single community or city with demographics like the one shown below a dirty, disgusting, dangerous, divided shithole….and why do you want that for America?

Unkotare
surada
rightwinger