- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Whatever happened to ending birthright citizenship?
Posted on 1/2/20 at 9:10 am to GeauxTrain
Posted on 1/2/20 at 9:10 am to GeauxTrain
quote:It is amazing how many on this thread would agree with this proposition ... IF you were discussing a Constitutional provision that they LIKED.
Once you've decided the words in the Constitution mean the exact opposite of what they say then the entire document is no longer worth the paper its printed on.
0
Posted on 1/2/20 at 9:18 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Well, we have identified ONE poster who is definitely not a Textualist.
Far more of a textualist than anyone who can find 'emances from the umbra of the penumbra" in support of killing babies in the womb. (or is it penumbra of the umbra? - i firgits"
Are you really implying that the authors of the 14th amendment were actually defining citizenship rights for a pregnant Chinese woman to drop a kid on US soil and return to China with the child enjoying dual citizenship USA/China???
Really???
I contend the constitution and its text were written with the understanding of the words that existed at the time the words were written. AND the proof my my assertion relies on what happened in the immediate aftermath of the adoption of the amendment.
to wit:
- for 200 years nobody thought the 2nd amendment meant the govt could confiscate firearms based on that "militia" word.
- same for 'free speech' the framers of those constitutional words would have shot you dead if some antifa thug tried to prevent them from going where they wanted to go or harassing them while they were eating dinner.
- framers of the 14th were concerned with granting citizenship to newly freed slaves === and for 150 YEARS there was not a rush from outside the boundaries to race in here to drop a baby claiming citizenship.
ONLY in the fevered minds of anti-constitutional malevolent political 'professors" does the obtuse wording take on a new 'meaning' -
ignoring plain meaning
invention new meaning to suit their desires
using constitutional rights as a weapon to attack normal people.
John Adams said it best - "This constitution provides a government for a religious and moral people - it is unequipped for the governance of any other"
You are admitting that the population should now be considered anti-religious and anti-moral so that the constitution can be wielded as a weapon, or ignored completely, to suit your momentary tactic to achieve absolute power and turn the constitution into some 'ancient piece of paper.'
Posted on 1/2/20 at 11:23 am to GeauxTrain
GeauxTrain
Your personal interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is in conflict with historic context and although it may suit your personal preferences it is incorrect.
Reference:
Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes defines "who are citizens".
Article XXV, Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes LOCATED HERE: LINK was enacted 9 years after the 14th amendment and defines "who are citizens". It clearly says "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
I realize that it seems to be difficult for you to follow links but if you do so you might be surprised at the facts that they reveal. What "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" Really Means
Your personal interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment is in conflict with historic context and although it may suit your personal preferences it is incorrect.
Reference:
Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes defines "who are citizens".
Article XXV, Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes LOCATED HERE: LINK was enacted 9 years after the 14th amendment and defines "who are citizens". It clearly says "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
I realize that it seems to be difficult for you to follow links but if you do so you might be surprised at the facts that they reveal. What "Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof" Really Means
Posted on 1/2/20 at 11:31 am to M1zz0u
By soil birthright citizenship can be stopped by an act of congress.
Congress already limits those in foreign militaries and diplomats from gaining citizenship for their children.
Congress already limits those in foreign militaries and diplomats from gaining citizenship for their children.
Posted on 1/2/20 at 1:27 pm to M1zz0u
quote:
Nothing is more disgusting than the people who worship the economy and don’t realize how out of touch they sound.
I can think of a lot of things that are more disgusting. Like a country where our value is based on income equality. Or "fairness".
Posted on 1/2/20 at 1:43 pm to M1zz0u
dimms won house in 2018 and all they care about is TDS and open borders, thats what happened
but you go right ahead and keep thinking you got him now
but you go right ahead and keep thinking you got him now
Posted on 1/2/20 at 2:46 pm to ImaObserver
quote:
Your personal interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment...
The actual words are explicit and plain. You won't find any other single sentence in the entire Constitution that is easier to interpret, it's THAT clear. How can this sentence be interpreted any other way than what it PLAINLY says?
"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."
Any attempt to argue hidden meanings or words that don't mean what they explicitly mean will be easily turned against us to take away all firearms and your very right to speak. Hell, the "militia" wording in the 2nd Amendment is easier to argue to mean "Army only" than the pathetic distortions you wish to make for the 14th.
Side note: It occurred to me this morning that under your disgusting Hail-Mary interpretation of the 14th Amendment that I'M not even a US citizen according to you since my great-grandmother was a Cherokee who refused to swear allegiance to the US Gov't 100 some-odd years ago. She married the grandson of Confederate who also refused to pledge fielty 50 years prior and they had a daughter. That daughter had another daughter who then had me. So according to your sick interpretation none of us were ever US citizens.
When can I expect a refund for all the taxes we've been paying for 150 years? Where should I go now you embarrassing jackass?
This post was edited on 1/2/20 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 1/2/20 at 3:28 pm to GeauxTrain
Tell it to the Supreme Court in the cases previously cited.
Their rulings still stand to this day.
Have you read and studied the links provided or is that too difficult for you?
I'm done discussing this issue with someone who is deliberately blind to any possibility other than their preferred interpretation and can offer no supporting evidence for that preference. BYE!!
Their rulings still stand to this day.
Have you read and studied the links provided or is that too difficult for you?
I'm done discussing this issue with someone who is deliberately blind to any possibility other than their preferred interpretation and can offer no supporting evidence for that preference. BYE!!
Posted on 1/2/20 at 3:42 pm to GeauxTrain
quote:
"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."
This is the rub. Illegal immigrants are illegal because they enter the country or continue to reside in the country without permission from the U.S. government. Because they have not “subjected themselves to the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States Government, there children should not be citizens per prior SCOTUS precedent. Those people are still considered subjects of the country they came from.
The reason they are is because of one administrative decision in the 1960’s during the Lyndon Johnson administration’s immigration reforms that was not made by congress nor ever challenged in SCOTUS.
The reason children of natives were not considered citizens is because Natives were considered citizens of their own sovereign nations, some at peace, and some at war with the United States. They were made citizens after WWI because so many natives fought in the war. It required a Congressional Act to extend citizenship to them because Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to make uniform rules for naturalization.
This post was edited on 1/2/20 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 1/2/20 at 3:54 pm to GeauxTrain
quote:
The actual words are explicit and plain. You won't find any other single sentence in the entire Constitution that is easier to interpret, it's THAT clear.
Agreed
How can this sentence be interpreted any other way than what it PLAINLY says?
"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."
Agreed, but I'm sure my plain reading of the bolded part does not match yours.
FYI We already deny citizenship for children of diplomats and children of foreign military by Laws written by Congress, specifically because of the bolded part.
IF we ever get a Conservative Supermajority in the Senate, control of the house and Presidency then I would fully expect to see congress deny citizenship to the so called anchor baby. Since citizens of other countries do not fall "under the jurisdiction thereof"
Any attempt to argue hidden meanings or words that don't mean what they explicitly mean will be easily turned against us to take away all firearms and your very right to speak.
Hell, the "militia" wording in the 2nd Amendment is easier to argue to mean "Army only" than the pathetic distortions you wish to make for the 14th.
Only in Bizzaro world
The 14th Amendment was written to make citizens of slaves, former slaves, and children of slaves.
As Stated earlier in my reply, Children born to diplomats and foreign military members are not granted citizenship, because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Neither do the children of illegal aliens
Side note: It occurred to me this morning that under your disgusting Hail-Mary interpretation of the 14th Amendment that I'M not even a US citizen according to you since my great-grandmother was a Cherokee who refused to swear allegiance to the US Gov't 100 some-odd years ago.
Made up bullshite that none of us believe.
She married the grandson of Confederate who also refused to pledge fielty(sic) 50 years prior and they had a daughter.
That daughter had another daughter who then had me. So according to your sick interpretation none of us were ever US citizens.
If any of the husbands along the way were citizens then you would be a citizen by blood
Secondarily. The 14th is not the only Amendment that constitutes Citizenship as related to American Indians.
Thirdly. If the State the "Confederate" who didn't declare "fealty" to the US re-entered the Union then all of it's citizens became US citizens.
This post was edited on 1/2/20 at 4:02 pm
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News