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

[Curried Goats]

No

Almost in the general area of what could be called a nice try - but no.

No to what? Your feelings? The United States has a long history of regulating people's possession of firearms and their ability to carry them in public.

 

[surada]

Birthright Citizenship

1. The US is one of the only nations to have this insane policy.

2. Such a bill would be completely against the Democrat agenda of flooding the nation with millions of cheap labor sources, adding to tbe Socialist destruction of the middle class.

2.1. Every illegal baby born on US soil and immediately deemed to be a US citizen means about a dozen illegals get to come to the US - mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, siblings, etc...

3. While almost all foreign US citizens who went through the legal process to become Americans hate Biden's Open Border and the 'foreign line-jumpers / shortcut-takers', there would be so.much opposition from Latino groups, activists, etc...

4. Politicians are afraid to.piss off ANYONE, especially Latinos since there are now at least 6 million more in the US and Democrats expect to be able to ram through at some point the right for the illegals to vote.

Chain migration is not birthright citizenship.

 

[pknopp]

Thanks for clarifying!

Do you understand that yet? Even though it was pointed out to you earlier, you continued to call is policy.

 

[dblack]

Nothing other than the rule of law which is more than you have.

What? What am I supposed to "have". I'm just asking a question. That your twisting yourself in knots to avoid answering.

Also what happens to the children who are born here from illegal immigrants if they aren't given birthright citizenship? Which nation would they be citizens of? Suppose the parents country of origin rejects them as well? You would leave children orphaned without a nation to call home?

No, I'd invite them to become citizens of this country. Just don't see why it should be automatic.

I realize that EVERYTHING for you is a partisan pissing match. Every issue requires that you take the opposite position of the Republicans, and then insult them until the cows come home. But I'm actually just curious what the justification for this rule is/was. From what I've read, it was installed as a way to deal with ex-slaves who were being denied citizenship. But that's all over now. So I'm wondering why we keep it. This isn't about xenophobic, anti-immigrant bigotry. Hell, I'm usually accused of being in favor of fully open borders. I'm pro-immigration.

If we didn't already have this rule, would there be a call to implement it? Why?

 

[dblack]

Do you understand that yet? Even though it was pointed out to you earlier, you continued to call is policy.

Um.. yeah. My bad. You've uncovered a fatal flaw. You are the winner!

 

[dblack]

So how would that work with those here on green cards, waiting the 5 years for citizenship, who have children before they become citizens?

Good question. I'd say, in that situation, their kids become citizens when they do. I'm not sure what the existing rules are.

 

[easyt65]

Chain migration is not birthright citizenship.

When an illegal can step across the border, squat, have a baby, that baby immediately have all rights of a US citizen, then bring a dozen more illegals into the country because the mom dropped it out on US soil, THAT IS WRONG / STUPID / A national SELF-DESTRUCTIVE policy...

IMHO.

 

[dblack]

When an illegal can step across the border, squat, have a baby, that baby immediately have all rights of a US citizen, then bring a dozen more illegals into the country because the mom dropped it out on US soil, THAT IS WRONG / STUPID / A national SELF-DESTRUCTIVE policy..

Do you have any data on how often this happens? It makes for great headlines on Fox News, but is it really a problem?

 

[easyt65]

Do you have any data on how often this happens? It makes for great headlines on Fox News, but is it really a problem?

Sorry, I don't work for the US BP, DHS, or theNiden admi istration. If I did work for the iden ad.inistration I would not comply with your request, as Blinken and Garland do regarding requests from the Oversight Committee. You seem to NOT have a problem with that, so you should not have a problem with me doing the same.

 

[dblack]

Sorry, I don't work for the US BP, DHS, or theNiden admi istration. If I did work for the iden ad.inistration I would not comply with your request, as Blinken and Garland do regarding requests from the Oversight Committee. You seem to NOT have a problem with that, so you should not have a problem with me doing the same.

???

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[Curried Goats]

What? What am I supposed to "have". I'm just asking a question. That your twisting yourself in knots to avoid answering.

You're the one who said I had nothing, Doofus. I'm pointing out that I have birthright citizenship. (My mother came here as an immigrant while pregnant with me)

No, I'd invite them to become citizens of this country. Just don't see why it should be automatic.

Because leaving it up to politicians to send an invite allows them to choose their citizens rather than citizens choosing their politicians.

I realize that EVERYTHING for you is a partisan pissing match.

The only side I'm ever on is my side. I don't care about people's party affiliation and had no problem calling Obama and Hillary bigots for opposing gay marriage as long as they did and I have no issue with calling Sinema and Manchin sellouts to corporate interests. If you feel like I'm pissing on you and your argument I might be but only because I think your argument is trash.

Every issue requires that you take the opposite position of the Republicans, and then insult them until the cows come home.

Which has nothing to do with them being the opposition party to the Democrats and everything to do with all their ideas being stupid. If there was a viable party to the left of the Democratic party I'd more than likely be supporting them.

But I'm actually just curious what the justification for this rule is/was. From what I've read, it was installed as a way to deal with ex-slaves who were being denied citizenship. But that's all over now. So I'm wondering why we keep it. This isn't about xenophobic, anti-immigrant bigotry. Hell, I'm usually accused of being in favor of fully open borders. I'm pro-immigration.

If we didn't already have this rule, would there be a call to implement it? Why?

Well that's a multifaceted answer. First there is the concept of natural rights. The American Founders believed these rights came before government and the government exists to protect them. In that way government choosing its citizens is counter intuitive. It's the people who choose their government. Of course originally this was only supposed to be applied to White children but when the issue of slavery came along it opened to the door to people of all ethnicities to become American citizens at birth. The first challenge to it was by a man of Chinese descent born of Chinese immigrant parents. He was denied entry to America after a trip to China. He remained on a ship docked in San Francisco while his case made it up to the Supreme Court and what won ironically was white fear. Because of the equal protection clause denying citizenship to babies born in the US of Chinese descent threatened the citizenship of babies born of Irish or English or German descent. And we can't have that can we?

 

[easyt65]

??? I'll take that as a "no".

Of course I don't have the exact stats in front of me, silly dumbass bot / troll.

Sorry, I don't play snowflake games like 'give ne the stats and links to prove your every comment or 'I' declare it to be a lie' ... something you hypocritical morons never do yourselves.

 

[dblack]

Of course I don't have the exact stats in front of me, silly dumbass bot / troll.

Sorry, I don't play snowflake games like 'give ne the stats and links to prove your every comment or 'I' declare it to be a lie' ... something you hypocritical morons never do yourselves.

I didn't declare it a lie. I just asked if there was any data. There probably is. There's no need to be so defensive.

 

[easyt65]

I didn't declare it a lie. I just asked if there was any data. There probably is. There's no need to be so defensive.

Sorry, I deal with a lot of trolls on this boatd. It gets annoying - my sincere apologies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But I'm actually just curious what the justification for this rule is/was. From what I've read, it was installed as a way to deal with ex-slaves who were being denied citizenship. But that's all over now. So I'm wondering why we keep it.

Because if anybody on the right suggested we get rid of the 14th, the Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.

 

[AMart]

Because if anybody on the right suggested we get rid of the 14th, the Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.

The 13th 14th and 15th are 100% about addressing the end of slavery and granting citizenship to blacks/their offspring. The 14th never gave a right of citizenship to a baby that was born from a woman in the country illegally or legally on a tourist/school visa. And back then there was virtually no immigration laws, no free stuff, etc. The first meat and potato immigration laws were passed around 1924. The anchor baby garbage needs to end.

 

[Seymour Flops]

That isnt my logic, that's your illiteracy on display. Not only is your IQ suspect but now so is your ability to read.

My logic is that racism and discrimination are the reason for the socio-economic disparities between white and black Americans.

Yes, of course they are. That racism and discrimination has always been perpetuated by the party you have chosen to align yourself with. For almost a hundred years, Democrats keep blacks enslaved. They lost political power for several years because Republicans did not let them vote having fought a war to divide the country and keep blacks enslaved. Blacks thrived during reconstruction.

But, fearing the Democratic founded KKK, the Republicans gave in and let them vote for Jim Crow and gun control laws that they never expected to be enforced against whites.

But those socio-economic factors cannot be the driving factor in gang-related killings and other black-on-black violence. Nor could the proliferation of guns. If those were the reason for black-on-black crime, it would have been at their worst right after WWII, when racism and discrimination were far worse than now, and when the market was flooded with surplus weapons of war, available for pennies on the dollar.

It isn't evolution that produces high IQ scores between different groups of humans, that isn't how evolution works. It is ironic that you think it is though.

What do you think is the reason?

Trust me, I feel no shame over your follies. In fact I'm quite amused by them.

It didn't happen in Africa because European settlers preferred to manage farms themselves? What kind of logic is this? What does one have to do with the other?

Sorry, that’s my fault. When explaining IQ to a person who’s tends to be low-IQ themselves, it is important to explain fully. People don’t need to be smart to hunt, beyond the great leap above the lower animals of language and ability plan. But, even at that, wild dogs and other pack animals hunt without talking about tThe plan to hunt. Getting smarter provides little to no advantage to hunters. It does to farmers, and so IQ was indeed driven by

Agriculture has been happening in Northern Africa since 10000 bce and in sub-saharan Africa since 3000 bce.

Sure, but not among the tribal people from which American and Carribean slaves descend. Their IQ’s have not improved much except through mixing with whites. We almost doomed ourselves with Democratic Party’s insistence on perpetuating slavery and the slave trade.

Also, the rise of IQs has nothing at all to do with the agricultural revolution. The first modern IQ test wasn't developed until 1904.

Yes, but the traits that IQ tests measure pre-date IQ testing.

Further if you had read Yuval Harari's book Sapiens you'd know agriculture was a trap. In fact he makes the case that wheat domesticated us. Hunter gather groups had more varied diets and so were less susceptible to famine and drought than agricultual communities who relied on one or a few main crops. They had more free time to play and socialize (farming is back breaking work from morning to night).

I’ll read it.

And they were easier prey to violent marauders and exploitation. In agricultural societies the vast majority of the population were poor and worked to provide food for the ruling elite who were often brutal and violent dictators. For most of human history you would have been better off as a hunter gatherer than as a farmer.

Yes, that is what led to government in the form of kings, hunter gatherers raiding farmers and finally realizing that if they only took half the crops, they could come back every year and do the same.

My thought is that you think hiding behind averages masks your own IQ deficiency. It does not.

What’s my IQ and how do you know it? Interesting that I say that I believe that you are intelligent, but you feel the need to be so childish.

That would not lower the disparities in violent crime rates between black and white criminals which also by the way translates to higher rates of victim hood for their targets which as we've already established are other black people. We already treat black criminals more severely than white ones and it has not translated in to lower rates of violent crime.

I don’t want them treated ”more severely,” I want them locked up for longer periods of time. Stop locking people up for drug posession and other victimless crimes and free up room. If a violent person serves twenty years in prison, that is twenty years that he has less access to victims. I don’t give two shits if he is ever “rehabilitated.” If he gets out and does it again, lock him up for LWOP.

This is also a poor display of logic. Desire is individual. One person or couple desperate for a baby does not exclude another couple or individual from having no desire for pregnancy or parenthood.

No, not at all. But it invalidates the idiotic argument that - unless women can abort up to the moment of birth for any or no reason - we will have hoards of “unwanted children.” Make an argument from a libertarian perspective, and I’ll say you have a point. That aborting children somehow saves them from being “unwanted” Is an asinine idea.

Mockery from morons doesn't bother me. Immigrants do better, even Black ones because we tend to come from different socio-economic backgrounds providing further evidence that the disparity between white and black Americans is also socio-economic in nature.

Not to mention that an immigrant (not a border jumper) comes to the country to succeed. Our Democratic run welfare system encourages American blacks to fail.

And I laugh at you for thinking I'm as susceptible to identity politics as your average white winger.

The irony of that statement is clearly lost on you.

I don't care about the Democratic Party beyond its usefulness as a tool.

For now. Demographic change will bring about cultural and political change and political change will bring about economic change. If you don't believe me stick around and find out. We can watch it happen together.

Sure.

Meanwhile, tell me how that is going to happen? I take it by “demographic change” you mean fewer white people and more brown people? How will that change the fact that The overwhelming majority of powerful people in the U.S. are white?

White females are rising faster than people of color.

I've been to South Africa. It's one of my favorite places on earth and where the wife and I would like to retire to, at least for half the year. We have a spot picked out in Kalk Bay which is a little fishing village in Cape Town. It's where we go to relax after the wife does her thing. She's a volunteer nurse in Africa for a month out of every year.

I don’t see why you want to spend another minute in Florida, USA.

 

[busybee01]

No, birthright citizenship is a danger to this country. Google Birther Tourism.

Countries and religions send their pregnant women here to have kids that will be considered Americans. They take them back to their government or religion to get radicalized. When they turn of age, they can walk right into the US to do us God knows what harm to us, even have rights to buy firearms like the AR-15 everybody on the left cries about.

You right wing Nazis are a danger to this country.

You are the dumbest piece of shit that I have seen. Crazy conspiracy theories.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You right wing Nazis are a danger to this country.

You are the dumbest piece of shit that I have seen. Crazy conspiracy theories.

Glad you feel that way. Join me in promoting the separation of this country. We divide it in two and you live your way and we'll live ours. Nothing would make me happier than never having to put up with you commies ever again.

 

[busybee01]

Birthright citizenship is a bad idea because it's one more reason for illegals to come here. Most of the countries in your link nobody would really want to go there anyway, especially those countries in the middle-east and Africa.

But the United States is the highest prize in the world, and that's why it's a bad idea for us to have it. Our border patrol reports they captured people from over 110 different countries. They are flying or boating to Mexico and running to our border to get in. No other country in the world has this problem and ours is self-inflicted.

They should make a law against birthright citizenship which the commies would challenge in court. Let the courts make the decision on what the 14th actually means. From everything I read, it had nothing to do with illegals.

Maybe you need to read something other than what your Nazi friends write. Even politicians of the time agreed that there is birthright citizenship and a reading of it shows this is the correct interpretation.