Regardless of Trump, how do you feel about the whole birthright citizenship thing? - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Whatever your belief on birthright citizenship -- whether you agree with it or not -- you should be terrified that a president thinks they can overturn an amendment via executive order.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

On things like this without total Republican backing, and maybe even with it he will get nothing done. How did Trump ever disguise what an ignorant know nothing he is? Money and bossing people around all his life gave him a confidence that he never deserved.

reply

[–] Destinata (3320) 6 years ago

As I understand it, there are only two developed countries stupid enough to have birthright citizenship. I think we should change it. But Trump can't do it with a pen and a phone.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

And you'd be wrong.

There are 30 countries with birthright citizenship.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/23/se-cupp/se-cupp-only-about-30-other-countries-offer-birthr/

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

What the hell makes an Anerican Citizen at that point? You have good arguments about the status of the parents and their fate is certainly up in the wind as fair grounds but an actual born in america child is not.

reply

[–] Destinata (3320) 6 years ago

The 14th Amendment was actually the repealing of slavery, and the inclusion of the birthright was to make sure that everyone understood they were American citizens on an equal footing with everyone else. But again, I think they said only Canada is the only other developed nation that has that rule. It made perfect sense for the time, but not now.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Yes it repealed slavery but it reasserted that the federal government had the right to declare born in the US grants you citizenship and that no state can take that away. It was never understood that people born in the US could be thrown out. Birthright citizenship was assumed to be under common law but due to attempts to by states to deny Slaves citizenship status it was also codified in the 14th amendment. Its always been in common law and after the 14th amendment it was officially apart of American law.

reply

[–] Destinata (3320) 6 years ago

I decided to look up how many countries on planet earth actually have birthright citizenship:

Countries With Birthright Citizenship
United States. Birthright citizenship in the US dates back to the Fourteenth Amendment. ...
Antigua and Barbuda. Persons born in the territory of Antigua and Barbuda are granted citizenship. ...
Canada.

That's it. No one in Europe or the British Isles. No one in most of the world. Maybe it's time for that Article V Convention of the States.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Where you pulling this data from?

Conservative pundit SE Cupp on Politifact has the tally at 33.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/23/se-cupp/se-cupp-only-about-30-other-countries-offer-birthr/

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (17407) 6 years ago

He can't change an amendment, but he can clarify it.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Birthright was enshrined into the 14th amendment to prevent a recurrence of the most egregious SCOTUS decision ever; Dred Scott.

The guarantee the state will not deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection under its laws is the bedrock foundation of civil rights in a free society. The Dred Scott ruling is why birthright citizenship was made absolute and uncompromising in its application when written into the Constitution.

If we believe in "free and equal" we can't be institutionalizing discrimination by creating a new underclass of disenfranchised that are denied equal protection through no fault of their own. We don't want a government capable of arbitrarily discriminating based on the political winds of the time, like what happened in Dred Scott. The importance of why birthright was enshrined into a Constitutional amendment cannot be understated for this reason. The Constitution is what protects minorities from being stripped of their rights by the tyranny of ruling majorities. The Founders were aware of the impossibility of maintaining a Democratic charter over the long term without the founding of a Constitutional Republic that protect the inalienable rights of all its citizens equally. Otherwise, they knew it just a matter of time before majorities persecuted minorities and stripped them of their rights. It's just human nature for those in power to use that power to stay in power.

It might be inevitable anyway if those of Trump's ilk get their way. But I can't see it happening. The Equal Protection clause is too fundamental to our nation's long standing laws and Constitutional ideals.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

The slave days are well past us. Now all Americans are slaves to the aristocratic oligarchy ... the global aristocratic oligarchy, a different mode of slavery, wage slavery, and wages are falling and will continue, until those with money to weather the storm own everything.

Compared to that I don't think reminiscing about Dred Scott really means anything. Equality is among citizens. Whatever would happen it would not be retroactive, so your fears are unfounded.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

We're obviously well past the days of slavery, but we're clearly not yet past bigotry and institutionalized racism. Even if it wasn't retroactive, my point remains that it would create an underclass of stateless residents who are denied equal protection through no fault of their own.

Would it be justified to deny the citizenship of anchor babies because of the sins of their parents? I see that as the real question. My opinion is no, that fundamentally violates the spirit of our foundational ideals.

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

Sins of the parents? If your parents rob a bank, it doesn't matter if they give the money to you. You don't get to keep it. That's stupid.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

?!?!

No one's talking about robbing anyone. Birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th amendment. It's not stealing nor is it even a crime. Your analogy is lame.

reply

[–] CaptHilts (4) 6 years ago

Can you provide some examples of institutionalized racism? Or laws that racist in their intent?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Institutional racism isn't dependent on "intent". It's institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, irrespective of intent. Explicitly racist laws could be part of that, like the recently reformed crack cocaine laws. But institutional racism is not necessarily the result of explicitly racist laws.

Right now there is overwhelming evidence of institutional racism in our criminal justice system where blacks are targeted at higher rates, exonerated at higher rates, and given far lengthier sentences for the exact same crimes and criminal histories compared to whites. Whether that's because of explicitly racist laws or not, the statistical significance of the outcomes in the studies done imply institutional racism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/?utm_term=.aed69fe35b0a

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

True the 14th amendment was about slaves but as a consequence it still asserts all children born here are citizens due to being born on on a stronger federalized territory(States don't have a say in this like they did in the past). This isn't about the fears of the left this is about the core definition of an American citizen. Sure you can throuw the parents of an anchor baby out but the baby is an American.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> Sure you can throuw the parents of an anchor baby out but the baby is an American.

As it is now, but there is no rational or productive reason for that, therefore it is more of a vestige of the past being held on to for no good reason.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Not true. Immigration was not the intent of 14th amendment. It was simply a defining codification of what an American Citizen is. You shouldn't look at the 14th amendment as being vestigial. It is actually what defines an American citizen. Other wise the citizenship of even your own children are on the table for the courts to choose which are worthy of citizenship.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Thank you for this great post! I’m hoping the dude in the Oval Office reads this!

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

He's saying that every other country in the world is racist and pro-slavery for not allowing anchor babies.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

I did? Show me where I said that.

Once again, your problem is taking the word of a known pathological liar as truth. 30 countries offer birthright citizenship. Trump's claim that only the US does this is pure bullshit. Look it up.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

It doesn’t matter. It’s in the Constitution. Even Trump knows nothing will come of it. He’s just saying this to get his Golden Corral base all worked into their racist froth for Election Day. And because his supporters are ....well.....dim, they’ll buy it.

reply

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

No it isn't, but the second amendment is, and there are plenty of executive orders restricting the right to bear arms.

reply

[–] TJLamb0518 (3316) 6 years ago

Read past #2, Comrade
“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Source? The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

I know that’s a lot of words for someone who desperately needs an assault rifle to compensate for their...shortcomings but give it a try.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Trillhouse I'm pro 2nd amendment just like you but I am also pro 14th amendment. If you can't even guarantee we are citizens because we were born here in the united States then the goverment has the right to strip everyone of their citizenship. If not the states that make us Citizens(Pre 14th amendment) and not being born in a federalized united states that makes us Citizens what determines our citizenship status?

We can keep people out of the country and most of us are OK with that but tossing out some one that is by definition a citizen is off limits.

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 6 years ago

Birthright citizenship iis a legal right to citizenship for all children born in a country regardless of parentage.

Get over it Trump!!!

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

Relax, no need to get nasty or know-it-all-ish, you don't. This is a remnant from when the US was growing across the continent with people from all different empires caught in the middle of it.

I don't like Trump one bit, and I don't like the way he proposes to change this, but I would not be unhappy to see it change.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

This is a remnant from when the US was growing across the continent with people from all different empires caught in the middle of it.

No that would be a remnant of immigration in general which the government totally has to right to cut off or increase based on the needs of the people but it can not take away the rights of children born here. You shoulden't really ever consider letting the government the authority to kick out born citizens otherwise non of us is a citizen. I'm 8th generation hispanic by the way so don't think I'm biased in favor of anchor babies I'm just biased in favor of the constitution.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

You wrote the words, but there is no meaning behind them.

> You shoulden't really ever consider letting the government the authority to kick out born citizens

The power is that the government, or rather the Constitution (amended or interpretted) is what determines if they are citizens or not.

I don't care who you are or what your past or heritage is, the only thing matters is the meaning of what you say, and you are talking but you are not making sense.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Ok let ne rephrase this. Do you advocate that the government should be allowed to strip the citizenship of even your own children? Do you really intend to give the government that right?

I hope you arn't being insulting and really do want to understand my words so I'll here the the correction below.
You really should not consider giving the government the authority to kick out natural born citizens otherwise none of our children are guaranteed to be citizens.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

They are not natural born citizens until some law says they are. Is it so hard to get that or are you just trolling me?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

Yet thats exactly what the law says. I think its you who aren't getting it.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

What law? You claim to know so much about it, point me to the words of the law, OK?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

The 14th amendment for one. You can do all kinds of semantic backflips all you want but birthright citizenship is the law. And this was also in common law.

reply

[–] slimone (7996) 6 years ago

brux, I'm not a know-it-all, I'm just stating a fact that everyone knows except Trump apparently.

reply

[–] liscarkat (18373) 6 years ago

At the very least, children born here to parents who are here illegally should not have automatic citizenship.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

The whole idea of birthright citizenship reminds me of the birds in the nature shows that cleverly lay their eggs in the nests of other birds to make them take care of their young

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Your analogy makes it sound like you think undocumented immigrants can immediately gain US citizenship through their child and apply for social welfare services, and thereby 'benefit' from sucking at the teat of the American taxpayer to raise their young. Don't fall for the right wing trope. It's bogus. The child can't sponsor their undocumented parents for citizenship until they become adults themselves.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

I am not falling for a right wing anything. It hardly matters, and the more strident Democrats get, the more they make Trumps claims that Democrats want to throw open the borders sound plausible .... it is a bad message from Democrats ... as usual.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

I don't disagree with regards to Democrats bad messaging far too often. But you really think defending birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment sounds like an invitation for open borders?

IMO that sounds like a real reach. Maybe with low information voters that could work. But then again, low information voters are naturally susceptible to all sorts of misinformation.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

I don't think or care about what they say, I have my own opinions on this stuff. I think we do need to throttle back on immigration, poor people and rich people alike. Immigrants need to to aculturate and letting too any in at one time is a recipe for disaster.

I also think there is no real need for birthright citizens.

That said, I don't support anything that Trump has done, nor the way he has done it or talked about it. I think Trump is a dirtbag, but like a broken clock, it's possible that he can be right twice a day.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Ok. But if your concern is cultural assimilation then it doesn't sound like birthright citizenship really maps onto your concern seeing as how a kid born and raised here is going to be culturally assimilated. And according to DHS from a report in 2014, 75% of undocumented immigrants have lived here for 10 years or more.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/illegal-immigration-statistics/

My point is that undocumented immigrants are going to have kids, irrespective of whether birthright is revoked or not. But IMO revoking it would be ruinous by exacerbating the issue of institutional racism by creating this new class of disenfranchised who aren't extended equal protection and where you'd be punishing the innocent.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

Do you see what you did there? ....

> a kid born and raised here is going to be culturally assimilated.

That is not necessarily true, especially when on the other hand you claim their parents are not going to be living here.

> 75% of undocumented immigrants have lived here for 10 years or more.

Irrelevant. What do undocumented immigrants that are already here have to do with whether babies born here are citizens or not? Nothing.

They are also not a new class of disenfranchised, they are the same old.

It's not a question of punishing anyone. That is another BS claim, like taxing rich people in punishing them, when everyone else who has to pay their taxes is what ... not being punished?

You arguments don't really cohere.

Another argument against birthright citizenship is that other countries do not do it. Americans cannot own land in Mexico, but if we they had birthright citizenship Americans could go there on vacation, have their kid, come back and they would have dual citizenship and then be able to buy land. It is asymmetric, and unfair.

There is a lot of stuff that people argue for just out of sentimentality. Like for example, if we did not have it, would you be arguing for us to instill this policy now ... and for what reason? It serves no productive purpose anymore.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

"That is not necessarily true, especially when on the other hand you claim their parents are not going to be living here."

Where did I claim this?

"Irrelevant. What do undocumented immigrants that are already here have to do with whether babies born here are citizens or not? Nothing."

This was in reference to your concern about cultural assimilation and my presumption that the longer they spend here the more assimilated they'll become, and the more likely their kids will be assimilated. Why wouldn't this be true?

"They are also not a new class of disenfranchised, they are the same old."

You don't see how not granting them the full rights of citizenship and equal protection is disenfranchising in itself?

"It's not a question of punishing anyone."

I'm not talking about intent, I'm talking about outcome. The revoking of birthright could be done with the best of intentions to limit immigration (even though that would be hard to believe given the history of overt racism in defining immigration restrictions), but it would have the consequence of disenfranchising those born and raised here to undocumented parents from have full rights of citizenship.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

You edited your bloody post, my quotes were cut and pasted.

You are also not responding to my comments. If you are doing to troll me or not consider what I am saying there is no sense in having discussion. You seem to have an agenda of trying to rope me into being a Republican, racist or Trump supporter, which I am none.

You could not make a law that would be retroactive, so those born here until a certain time would still be citizens.

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

Wh0a man, I'm not trying "rope" you into anything. I'm trying to have a friendly conversation. That is all.

I haven't edited any post AT ALL.

I KNOW from past conversations with you that you're not a Trump supporter. Jesus, I respect what you have to say, that's why I've tried to be as respectful as possible.

But please don't insult my intelligence about editing anything. I have no idea what you're talking about. I never said anything about the parents not living here. You must be thinking of a different poster.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

I don't really care that much about this issue, except to say that it servers no purpose and it would never get passed into law today, so why should it stand just because it was there in the past?

It's not that complicated.

What is it you think then?

reply

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

And again, I'm not talking about anything 'retroactive'. I'm talking about he 11-12 million undocumented immigrants here right now.

My point is that they're going to have kids moving forward irrespective of whether you revoke birthright or not. And doing so would just be creating a new class of disenfranchised by not extending their kids who were born in America and have only known the US as the only country they ever had full rights of citizenship and equal protection.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

I agree with your first point but disagree with "I also think there is no real need for birthright citizens". We may not need birthright citizenship but it is the core definition of what an American Citizen is but everyone's citizenship is in jeopardy if you allow the government to think your not a citizen by birth.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> but it is the core definition of what an American Citizen is

That is simply your opinion. There is no law or rational reason why this amendment or interpretation is needed any longer.

The government does not think, the president, legislature and courts are what "thinks", and in that case thinking merely means manages the logic and consistency of the laws given our "mission statement" or the Constitution. There is no Constitiutional reasoning or need for birthright citizenship. If there used to be it is no irrelevant today.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

That is simply your opinion. There is no law or rational reason why this amendment or interpretation is needed any longer.

This apparently opinion on your part as well. The issue now is there is no codified definition of what criteria determines which of us are citizens. You keep ignoring the vacuum you would be creating as there is no longer any definition of what a US citizen is.

"The government does not think"
An unusual generalization considering the government is a collection of people that do think. And even stranger as you are yourself anthropomorphising the courts.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

If your parent was a a citizen, one or the other, you are a citizen.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

It sounds like the main issue you have is with anchor babies. If a kid is born here and his parents are illegal, birthright citizenship does not mean the parents get to live here. Birthright citizenship means the kid gets to live here either if he has a legal extended family here to take care of him or when he's old enough to move here and make a living. If his only family is in Mexico, then he's sent to his family. As far as I know, the kid cannot sponsor his family's entry into the US until he is 21.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

The end result of a kid with American citizenship is that his parents are very likely to get to reside in the US. Even if he has to wait until he is 21 it doesn't matter. Like I said, there is no real reason for it. anymore.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

There are so many viable ways to combat anchor babies than to remove birthright citizenship. In fact, attempting to end birthright citizenship is perhaps the worst way to go about it, because it it almost guarantees nothing will change. The constitution is the constitution. You aren't going to change it because of some feelings you have that you can't even quantify.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> There are so many viable ways to combat anchor babies than to remove birthright citizenship.

Who says the object is to combat anchor babies, and anchor babies are anchor babies because of birthright citizenship - by definition.

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

"Who says the object is to combat anchor babies"

Again, as I said above, anchor babies was the gist I got from your OP which said "Then the parents need to be there to take care of the American citizen." That's an anchor baby situation, but it is not a birthright citizenship situation. It doesn't even work that way. It's the other way around with the kid taking care of the family.

"anchor babies are anchor babies because of birthright citizenship - by definition."

Birthright citizenship isn't allowing illegal parents to live here. There's something else required to make that happen. As I wrote above, it's done through sponsorship. If you want to remove the anchor baby problem, then you tackle it by adjusting the sponsorship program. If you go after birthright citizenship to fix the anchor baby problem, you might as well be waving a wand that someone told you was magic. That was my overall point. It's a useless endeavor. Trump knows this, but his goal is to use propaganda to get more republicans to vote in the midterms.

After the midterms are over, I doubt we'll hear much about birthright citizenship. We probably won't hear much about caravans either.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

Not per se, but it is a by-product. It is not the issue, the issue is what function does it serve other than to get people arguing?

reply

[–] dlancer (2036) 6 years ago

The function is to continue welcoming people here so America remains the multicultural capital of planet earth. To get rid of birthright citizenship is a big slap in the face of what is fundamentally the best part of this country.

Opposing birthright citizenship is caving in to the wrong side of conservatism -- the side that says America is mine, not yours. Supporting birthright citizenship is adhering to the correct side of conservatism -- the side that says it has worked well for us to make us the most prosperous country, so let's continue it.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

It will be a difficult argument for anyone to try to claim the 14th amendment doesn't grant citizenship by birth on US soil. Prior to the 14th amendment the states dictated which foreigners were allowed to imigrate. The 14th amendment on the other hand asserts that by being born on American soil that child is subject to federal jurisdiction and that it is the federal government that is granting them citizenship not the individual states anymore.

Trump can talk all he wants to rally up the fringe section of his base but most of the GOP as well as mid center conservatives will not support his attempt to strip citizen ship of born American(Your born here your one of us) citizens.

It also doesn't make sense to try to remove some one that has lived their entire conscious life here, may only speak english, and have had experience only with American culture. Trump can talk all he wants but paul ryan is correct in that the GOP won't support that in the house or the senate and using the supreme court to circumvent congress is a trick that only the left really gets away with and conservatives will reject that due to the principles of the constitution.

Don't get me wrong I'm totally against sanctuary states and cities (I live in one my self) but being born here makes you American. Even with out the 14th amendment legally where are you gonna dump a child that was born here? What countries documents are you supposed to recognize in therms of the child that was born here?

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

You are right, that is exactly what the 14th does ... so it would need to be changed, assuming there is the political will and consensus. Trump cannot change it with an executive order, and since it is not really an enforcement thing maybe doubtful he can NOT enforce it?

Foreigners on or visiting American are under legal jurisdiction of the US, aside from diplomats with diplomatic immunity.

The problem here is the reason I posted, that Trump may be trying to rally or energize his base, but there are a lot of reasonable people who have moderate reasonable views on immigration that do not like birthright citizenship.

I support sanctuary city laws because there are many cases where they help enforce the law and protect people.

I think a child born here and abandoned could be accepted through the immigration system and would not need the 14th Amendment, otherwise the child belongs to his or her parents and is a citizen I would presume or one or the other, maybe both.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

You are right, that is exactly what the 14th does ... so it would need to be changed, assuming there is the political will and consensus.

I urge you to not support that line of thinking. What will your argument then be the day congress decides to repeal the second amendment?

Also what criteria do you think determines citizenship if birth isn't it. What protection is implied in our law that then says words the the effect of "Children being born of american citizens shall also be granted citizenship"?

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

The second amendment is different in kind, and application of the your "slippery slope" is simpy fear mongering based on irrationality.

I never said birth was not part of the mix of determines citizenship, but after the nationality of the parents - who are his or her birth parents, there is really no good argument as to why location should be an issue.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

The second amendment is different in kind, and application of the your "slippery slope" is simpy fear mongering based on irrationality.

I had a small suspicion you would try to pull the slippery slope card. However your ignoring the fact that the odds of repealing the second amendment is actually higher defeating the 14th. I simply advocate there is no argument or rational reason to ban birthright citizenship. And while your opinion that citizenship is determined by the nationality of a child's parents your still ignoring that this is not codified in law and that not only would you have to repeal the 14th amendment to achieve your goals you also need to codify officially what defines an American citizen otherwise some other jackass will come along and claim the law doesn't even guarantee citizenship to even those parent's children.

I've concluded your objection to citizenship of said children born to illegal immigrants in the US is based on your fear that they will not assimilate is the real fear mongering between us. Its 1st generation immigrants that have difficulty assimilating not the children. Its very unlikely that a child born in the US won't learn english or adopt the cultural values that your children do.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> However your ignoring the fact that the odds of repealing the second amendment is actually higher defeating the 14th.

If you think that I don't think there is any basis for us to have a rational discussion. Either one of them could be modified by Congress, or if the Supreme Court agreed they could be regulated.

I don't have any fear about any of it, and I have been completely honest and open about how I feel about it ... I don't think it serves any useful purpose. It's not bad, but it tends towards bad in that it brings in people that are not vetted or productive, in that they are infants ... so, what is the point.

I'll ask the question again, if you were going to argue this today, what reason would you give to motivate it. That is, you are a Congressperson submitting a bill, what would it say and for what reason? I don't think there is one. Can you think of one?

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

I'll ask the question again, if you were going to argue this today, what reason would you give to motivate it. That is, you are a Congressperson submitting a bill, what would it say and for what reason? I don't think there is one. Can you think of one?

That's just it I woulden't need to introduce this bill today as common law had already established birthright citizenship to children born here. This bill would only need to be introduced if the states tried to assume they had the authority to deny this of the federal goverment.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

I think Kavanaugh would disagree with you. America is based on the Constitution, not British common law.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

American law was and is to some extent an extension of common law. Typically common law was used to fill in the gaps that American Law didn't explicity prescribe decisions for. As time moves forward common law needs to be cited less and less due to the large and still growing volume of American law that now exists it is still on rare occasions cited from time to time today. At the time the 14th amendment was written common law was still heavily relied on. Birthright citizenship was already on the books and I fined it ironic that people like you assume it was never the case and use misinterpretation of the 14th amendment to imply birthright citizenship rights never and still don't exist.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> American law was and is to some extent an extension of common law.

Your arguments come into focus now ... you are not making honest conclusions. Talk to Lee Marvin about common law wife and palimoney, which was a legal argument based on common law.

You are talking here like a typical Internet expert, making claims ahead of your next Google search.

Common law can be used as an argument, but it has very little legal force, and as far as I know has nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

Haha, people like me, huh. You are talking through your teeth.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

All that I have said is based on common knowledge which doesn't require future google searches to back up. The irony is that you demanded to know what laws grant birthright citizenship then try to turn it around by saying I'm doing the google search nonsense.

I in turn accuse you of moving the goal post as your argument has shifted from

a) Birth right citizenship wasn't apart of the law untill the 14th amendment. And since slavery doesn't exist should be removed.

to

b) Common now doesn't count anymore as it did in the 1800s therefor with out the 14th amendment birthright citizenship doesn't exist.

Your also skipping the question of where in the law citizenship is even defined.

Haha, your talking out your ass.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> Haha, your talking out your ass.

This makes you not worth talking to or taking seriously.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 6 years ago

fine by me. You had your chance.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (14270) 6 years ago

I think Trump is a genius. If this proposal happens, the immigrants get to stay, and more can come, and the companies can continue to get the cheap labor, and the mouth breathers get to wave their flags on the Fourth of July. Like he said November 1, 2018, "They should apply to come into our country. We want them to come into our country very much. We need people to help us, with all of these companies that are coming in."

reply