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

[surada]

Just curious, but why is it racist to end birthright citizenship? It applies to lily white Europeans just at it does Hispanics or Asians.

The real issue is why would we allow someone to sneak over our border illegally and have kids that are citizens? How does that make any sense to anybody that lives in a sovereign country?

Do you understand sovereignty? Jurisdiction is derived from sovereignty. No other country's laws apply in the US.

 

[DBA]

We allow it because it's the law.

Yes, via the 14th amendment, which you misinterpret. Regardless, where is all this progressivism now? The 14th ammendment was passed just after the Civil War. Do you think it is possible that it should be repealed or further clarified given that we have a totally different set of circumstances now when it comes to immigration. I have a very difficult time believing that our forefathers expected it to be applied as it is now.

 

[pknopp]

Yes, via the 14th amendment, which you misinterpret.

It has nothing to do with me. I've explained why many times.

Regardless, where is all this progressivism now? The 14th ammendment was passed just after the Civil War. Do you think it is possible that it should be repealed or further clarified given that we have a totally different set of circumstances now when it comes to immigration. I have a very difficult time believing that our forefathers expected it to be applied as it is now.

I said if you believe it wrong, repeal it. You know the process. Or just bitch on the internet.

 

[surada]

Yes, via the 14th amendment, which you misinterpret. Regardless, where is all this progressivism now? The 14th ammendment was passed just after the Civil War. Do you think it is possible that it should be repealed or further clarified given that we have a totally different set of circumstances now when it comes to immigration. I have a very difficult time believing that our forefathers expected it to be applied as it is now.

You are still ignoring sovereignty and jurisdiction.

 

[DBA]

It has nothing to do with me. I've explained why many times.




I said if you believe it wrong, repeal it. You know the process. Or just bitch on the internet.

My question was why is it ”racist” to disagree with natural born citizenship? Simple enough.

 

[surada]

My question was why is it ”racist” to disagree with natural born citizenship? Simple enough.

Natural born citizenship comes from sovereignty and jurisdiction.

 

[pknopp]

My question was why is it ”racist” to disagree with natural born citizenship? Simple enough.

I think most of it is because of a political cult aspect.

 

[Curried Goats]

Just curious, but why is it racist to end birthright citizenship? It applies to lily white Europeans just at it does Hispanics or Asians.

Sure it does. That's typically how all American laws have applied throughout American history. Equally among all.

You clowns might been born yesterday but the rest of haven't.

The real issue is why would we allow someone to sneak over our border illegally and have kids that are citizens? How does that make any sense to anybody that lives in a sovereign country?

It makes sense to me not to leave newborn babies abandoned without a country they have citizenship in.

 

[Curried Goats]

Yes, via the 14th amendment, which you misinterpret. Regardless, where is all this progressivism now? The 14th ammendment was passed just after the Civil War. Do you think it is possible that it should be repealed or further clarified given that we have a totally different set of circumstances now when it comes to immigration. I have a very difficult time believing that our forefathers expected it to be applied as it is now.

There's your problem right there. I don't give a shit about how some long dead slavers felt. Their corpses can eat my ass.

 

[22lcidw]

There's your problem right there. I don't give a shit about how some long dead slavers felt. Their corpses can eat my ass.

Your concerns are noted. The documents of men promoting rights over history are far and in between. Near all of them come from England. The Rule of Law and the Magna Carta. Simple rights where none existed. Most of the Western Hemisphere conquered from Europeans lived differently and did not prosper as much. We have a way to go. And we do not follow the documents we are supposed to live y now to well at times. What is concerning is that people are snapping out even as privileged empowered law enforcement and judicial fiefdoms run roughshod over their subjects.

 

[surada]

Your concerns are noted. The documents of men promoting rights over history are far and in between. Near all of them come from England. The Rule of Law and the Magna Carta. Simple rights where none existed. Most of the Western Hemisphere conquered from Europeans lived differently and did not prosper as much. We have a way to go. And we do not follow the documents we are supposed to live y now to well at times. What is concerning is that people are snapping out even as privileged empowered law enforcement and judicial fiefdoms run roughshod over their subjects.

US law is not in question. Why are you talking about England?

 

[22lcidw]

US law is not in question. Why are you talking about England?

English ways came here to what became the United States. French and Spanish ways were less of any rights.

 

[surada]

English ways came here to what became the United States. French and Spanish ways were less of any rights.

The US is a sovereign state. Only US law applies here. That's why the US has jurisdiction over everyone on US soil with the exception of foreign ambassadors.

 

[surada]

Yes, via the 14th amendment, which you misinterpret. Regardless, where is all this progressivism now? The 14th ammendment was passed just after the Civil War. Do you think it is possible that it should be repealed or further clarified given that we have a totally different set of circumstances now when it comes to immigration. I have a very difficult time believing that our forefathers expected it to be applied as it is now.

You are ignoring sovereignty and jurisdiction.

 

[surada]

English ways came here to what became the United States. French and Spanish ways were less of any rights.

Sovereignty and jurisdiction belong to the US alone. Spain and France have nothing to do with it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Your concerns are noted. The documents of men promoting rights over history are far and in between. Near all of them come from England. The Rule of Law and the Magna Carta. Simple rights where none existed. Most of the Western Hemisphere conquered from Europeans lived differently and did not prosper as much. We have a way to go. And we do not follow the documents we are supposed to live y now to well at times. What is concerning is that people are snapping out even as privileged empowered law enforcement and judicial fiefdoms run roughshod over their subjects.

I like how Simps think Europeans invented not treating people like dicks.

 

[Flopper]

Take the issue to the court. It's simple. I've noted many times why it isn't. There is even a right leaning court. Take a case to the court. Or just bitch on the internet.

The Supreme Court would not hear the case unless a lower court ruled against birthright citizenship and thus the the 14th amendment. In 1898, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Birthright Citizenship by a 6-2 vote with one abstaining vote. There is no reason to think that the current court would overturn that decision even thou the court is dominated by conservatives.

Overturning birthright citizenship would be a disaster for the nation. It would create a permeant non-citizen class that would grow rapidly due to higher birthrates among the undocumented. They could not be deported and could not immigrate to other countries and worst of all, they could not be assimilate. In effect, they would become a rapidly growing cancer on the nation.

Also if birthright citizenship were overturned, we would have to redefine US citizenship which would be a lot harder than dealing with illegal immigration, which of course is the source of the problem. Since citizenship laws could be overturned and replaced with each change in control of goverment, we would need an amendment to the constitution which would be nearly impossible.

 

[pknopp]

The Supreme Court would not hear the case unless a lower court ruled against birthright citizenship and thus the the 14th amendment. In 1898, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Birthright Citizenship by a 6-2 vote with one abstaining vote. There is no reason to think that the current court would overturn that decision even thou the court is dominated by conservatives.

I don't disagree. It's why it doesn't go to the courts.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, via the 14th amendment, which you misinterpret. Regardless, where is all this progressivism now? The 14th ammendment was passed just after the Civil War. Do you think it is possible that it should be repealed or further clarified given that we have a totally different set of circumstances now when it comes to immigration. I have a very difficult time believing that our forefathers expected it to be applied as it is now.

Seems pretty clear to me.
Section 1, line 1 of 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.

 

[DBA]

Sure it does. That's typically how all American laws have applied throughout American history. Equally among all.

Ok, so how is it racist to disagree with birthright citizenship for everyone of all races?

It makes sense to me not to leave newborn babies abandoned without a country they have citizenship in.

About as much sense as it makes to allow anyone from any country to freely walk across our border with the intent of having a baby(babies) who automatically becomes a US citizen on our dime.

You are ignoring sovereignty and jurisdiction.

And the left is ignoring the fact that without being coupled with border security, birthright citizenship becomes something far beyond its original intent.