motonoggin Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 I think citizenship should be based upon whether or not you can pass a second grade spelling test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmo Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 48 minutes ago, motonoggin said: I think citizenship should be based upon whether or not you can pass a second grade spelling test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 1 hour ago, motonoggin said: I think citizenship should be based upon whether or not you can pass a second grade spelling test It’s a start. In English, right? Uh Oh. Meme war!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted November 1, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted November 1, 2018 I realize a non citizen can enter the military but one cannot be drafted. Beyond the actual history of the writer of the 14th saying illegals born here are not citizens I would think if one falls under the jurisdiction of the US they would be eligible for the draft. I don't think the SC would uphold any laws because of the history (Roberts wouldn't for sure) but there is actual legal standing as to why the 14th didn't mean automatic citizenship for those born to someone illegally here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 To change or repeal a Constitutional Amendment: Quote To begin, a proposed amendment must be voted approved by a 2/3 majority of both legislative bodies of the US Congress. The Proposed Amendment must then be sent ot every individual State's legislature for consideration. Each state follows its own parliamentary process to arrive at a yea or nay on the Proposed Amendment. For the Proposed Amendment to become a Constitutional Amendment, 3/4 of the individual American States must vote a final yea. https://www.quora.com/What-does-it-take-to-remove-an-amendment-from-the-U-S-Constitution In any event Trump throws this out there to take the focus off the issues, I do give the man credit for taking up a large amount of the oxygen in the room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 3 hours ago, motonoggin said: I think citizenship should be based upon whether or not you can pass a second grade spelling test @Ez ryder Sorry my man, I just had to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Mileage Psycho said: @Ez ryder Sorry my man, I just had to your public school system kept pushing me through with out hesitating . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 If man & wife Russian embassy personnel had a child while in the USA would that child be automatically a USA citizen?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 13 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: To change or repeal a Constitutional Amendment: In any event Trump throws this out there to take the focus off the issues, I do give the man credit for taking up a large amount of the oxygen in the room. Good thing he doesn’t have to go through that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, XCR1250 said: If man & wife Russian embassy personnel had a child while in the USA would that child be automatically a USA citizen?? No. "Under jurisdiction." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XCR1250 Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents. The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens, those children are considered citizens of the native countries of their parents, just like children born abroad to American parents are considered U.S. citizens, no matter where the children are born, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal immigrants – only permanent, legal residents. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted November 2, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted November 2, 2018 (edited) Funny no liberal thought Obama's DACA EO was unconstitutional......except Obama. Interesting that NBC News thinks Trump might be correct. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-birthright-plan-vs-u-s-constitution-here-s-n926501 Trump's birthright plan vs. the U.S. Constitution: Here's who wins Analysis: The 14th Amendment may not have been intended to provide citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. Edited November 2, 2018 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 (edited) Righties might want to tread lightly, playing around with the exact wording of amendments may not be so smart. Take the 2nd and 4th for example... Neal Edited November 2, 2018 by NaturallyAspirated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted November 2, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted November 2, 2018 1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Righties might want to tread lightly, playing around with the exact wording of amendments may not be so smart. Take the 2nd and 4th for example... Neal Spoken like a true liberal. "Actual wording of the constitution don't matter." Seems to me the wording on the 2nd is pretty clear. I agree on the 4th. "Unreasonable" fucks it up completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: Righties might want to tread lightly, playing around with the exact wording of amendments may not be so smart. Take the 2nd and 4th for example... Neal Muh Amendments.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted November 2, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted November 2, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, XCR1250 said: American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents. The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens, those children are considered citizens of the native countries of their parents, just like children born abroad to American parents are considered U.S. citizens, no matter where the children are born, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal immigrants – only permanent, legal residents. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment had been interpreted to not apply to Native people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act https://fox5sandiego.com/2016/06/29/birth-tourism-booming-in-san-diego/ Growing trend has Chinese women coming to San Diego to give birth https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/03/05/the-shadowy-world-of-birth-tourism-at-californias-luxury-maternity-hotels/ Inside the shadowy world of birth tourism at ‘maternity hotels’ Edited November 2, 2018 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 12 minutes ago, Highmark said: Spoken like a true liberal. "Actual wording of the constitution don't matter." Seems to me the wording on the 2nd is pretty clear. I agree on the 4th. "Unreasonable" fucks it up completely. That's what the right, and Trump are doing here. Wording doesn't matter... That's not an intelligent move by the right. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted November 2, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted November 2, 2018 1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said: That's what the right, and Trump are doing here. Wording doesn't matter... That's not an intelligent move by the right. Neal Actually its the complete opposite and there is plenty of proof. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 9 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: That's what the right, and Trump are doing here. Wording doesn't matter... That's not an intelligent move by the right. Neal How ambiguous is "under jurisdiction of..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted November 2, 2018 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted November 2, 2018 http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-asian-anchor-babies-wealthy-chinese-20150826-story.html One affidavit related to that case quoted a law review article estimating that about 40,000 of 300,000 children born to foreign citizens in the U.S. each year are the product of birth tourism. The website of one birthing center suggested that 4,000 Chinese women had been served since 1999. The crackdown included one birthing center in Irvine. According to an affidavit, more than 400 women associated with the Irvine location have given birth at one Orange County hospital since 2013. One of the women paid $4,080 out of $28,845 in hospital bills, while her bank account showed charges at Wynn Las Vegas and purchases at Rolex and Louis Vuitton stores, the affidavit said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, Highmark said: Actually its the complete opposite and there is plenty of proof. No, it's exactly what is happening. Past rulings show it to be so. Denying birthright citizenship is an idiotic wetdream and will not hold against the Constitution. It's stupid to fight it and will only lead to other amendment coming under attack. This is going to work out just like the nuclear option has. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said: No, it's exactly what is happening. Past rulings show it to be so. Denying birthright citizenship is an idiotic wetdream and will not hold against the Constitution. It's stupid to fight it and will only lead to other amendment coming under attack. This is going to work out just like the nuclear option has. Neal Didn't you think Trump would lose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, Snake said: How ambiguous is "under jurisdiction of..." Do you promote the idea that the US has no jurisdiction over those born here? What jurisdiction were slaves held under exactly? If the US has no jurisdiction over those here illegally then we cannot punish them for crimes committed here then. That's not a very intelligent argument point to make. Would you trade the ability to apply all our laws to illegals, simply so that children born to them are not considered under jurisdiction? Seems unrealistic and unreasonable. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturallyAspirated Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 Just now, Snake said: Didn't you think Trump would lose? Sure, most everyone did, many hoped he would win but stated it looked unlikely. Neal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 Just now, NaturallyAspirated said: Sure, most everyone did, many hoped he would win but stated it looked unlikely. Neal So I was right and you were wrong. I'll just continue that theme.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.