14th amendment

C

Canceled2

Banned
In the United Kingdom, the British Nationality Act of 1981 abandoned territorial birthright citizenship in favor of parentage based citizenship.

Why did they do so? Because they had become such an entitlement society that they could no longer afford not to. It is the same reasoning all Western governments have used as one by one they too have abandoned territorial birthright citizenship in the last 50 years...It is why the US needs to do so.
 
Last edited:
Ice Dancer said:
In the United Kingdom, the British Nationality Act of 1981 abandoned territorial birthright citizenship in favor of parentage based citizenship.

Why did they do so? Because they had become such an entitlement society that they could no longer afford not to. It is the same reasoning all Western governments have used as one by one they too have abandoned territorial birthright citizenship in the lasy 50 years...It is why the US needs to do so.
Click to expand...

The US government, and it's people, had to amend the constitution to change something that was normal accepted practice. in 1933, they had to amend it again to reverse that idiotic decision. Shortly thereafter, we stupidly allowed the courts to decide when certain laws could violate the constitution under the term of 'reasonable' or as some refer to it, adapting to the times. Don't be foolishly led down the same path again because you don't like the consequences of those actions.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The US government, and it's people, had to amend the constitution to change something that was normal accepted practice. in 1933, they had to amend it again to reverse that idiotic decision. Shortly thereafter, we stupidly allowed the courts to decide when certain laws could violate the constitution under the term of 'reasonable' or as some refer to it, adapting to the times. Don't be foolishly led down the same path again because you don't like the consequences of those actions.
Click to expand...

I think it is foolish to think one must keep their head in their ass just because they foolishly inserted it.
 
If we abolished territorial citizenship it would lead to underclasses developing in American society. Any detrimental effects of territorial citizenship are far outweighed by the effects of abolishing it.

And, besides, we can't amend our constitution by a majority like they can in Britain. Good luck getting those votes.
 
The reason europeans support parent based citizenship is because they don't want muslims to be able to vote or run for office. They believe if muslims had political power they would try to get Islamic law passed. Muslims would only vote for muslims. Muslims are growing in numbers while european's are declining. Its easier to kick people out of a country if they are not citizens.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
The US government, and it's people, had to amend the constitution to change something that was normal accepted practice. in 1933, they had to amend it again to reverse that idiotic decision. Shortly thereafter, we stupidly allowed the courts to decide when certain laws could violate the constitution under the term of 'reasonable' or as some refer to it, adapting to the times. Don't be foolishly led down the same path again because you don't like the consequences of those actions.
Click to expand...

what is the purpose of scotus?
 
MakeMeASandwichBitch said:
If we abolished territorial citizenship it would lead to underclasses developing in American society. Any detrimental effects of territorial citizenship are far outweighed by the effects of abolishing it.

And, besides, we can't amend our constitution by a majority like they can in Britain. Good luck getting those votes.
Click to expand...

It takes 2/3 of both houses to amend.

Actually the best way to deal with anchor baby citizenship is to revist the 14th with a test case. There was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" when the 14th amendment was written. With a savvy constitutional challenge it could be possible to interpret the 14th as not being a gateway to illegal aliens seeking anchor baby citizenship.
 
Ice Dancer said:
It takes 2/3 of both houses to amend.

Actually the best way to deal with anchor baby citizenship is to revist the 14th with a test case. There was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" when the 14th amendment was written. With a savvy constitutional challenge it could be possible to interpret the 14th as not being a gateway to illegal aliens seeking anchor baby citizenship.
Click to expand...

You mean making shit up. No thanks.
 
Ice Dancer said:
A case worth testing is proof it has at least some merit dork.
Click to expand...
The 14th Amendment says what is says, whether it means people can take unfair advantage of its definition of citizen or not. The idea that it can be "interpreted" to mean something different due to current circumstances is pure liberal "living document" bullshit. It's no different that reinterpreting the 2nd under the claim that they did not anticipate modern firearms.

The amendment process is the mechanism built into the Constitution to handle changing times. It was made difficult so we could not "change government long established for light and transient causes". But change it we can, and that is the only acceptable method of changing what it means.
 
Good Luck is correct. STY is also correct when he said: "we stupidly allowed the courts to decide when certain laws could violate the constitution under the term of 'reasonable' or as some refer to it, adapting to the times."

We've stopped amending the Constitution, instead reinterpreting it or simply ignoring it. We need an amendment to take care of this, along with a lot of loose ends. I suggest that an amendment be proposed that would:

1. Define the path to citizenship;
2. Establish the Air Force;
3. Limit the terms of Congress;
4. Limit the terms of Supreme Court Justices, and re-establish their number at five.
5. State unequivocally that the enumerated powers are just that.
 
Ice Dancer said:
In the United Kingdom, the British Nationality Act of 1981 abandoned territorial birthright citizenship in favor of parentage based citizenship.

Why did they do so? Because they had become such an entitlement society that they could no longer afford not to. It is the same reasoning all Western governments have used as one by one they too have abandoned territorial birthright citizenship in the last 50 years...It is why the US needs to do so.
Click to expand...

America isn’t Europe. Europe has a history of xenophobia and a deep-seated inability to successfully integrate immigrants and different ethnic groups.

America’s strength is our acceptance of diversity, and our tolerance for cultural melting pot which has made us stronger.

Anchor babies are a faux “problem” that the reich wing flogs routinely. You are being screwed by Wall Street titans, corporate overlords, and their political handmaidens. Some Mexican baby born in El Paso has either no effect, or negligible effect on your life. You are being manipulated by rightwing xenophobia (aka, Mexicans, muslims, blacks, welfare queens), which is one of their standard attempts to distract you with bright shiny things. There’s bigger fish to fry than a Mexican baby in El Paso, or a Muslim community center in Manhattan – but sadly, Boss Limbaugh doesn’t want you and the tea bag fringe to be aware of them.

The 14th Amendment is arguably the greatest historical achievement of the Republican Party. The fact that modern Republicans and NeoConfederates routinely attack the 14th amendment and Abraham Lincoln is sober testament to how far the Republican Party has strayed from its progressive roots, into the realms of uber-rightwing teabagging.
 
Good Luck said:
The 14th Amendment says what is says, whether it means people can take unfair advantage of its definition of citizen or not. The idea that it can be "interpreted" to mean something different due to current circumstances is pure liberal "living document" bullshit. It's no different that reinterpreting the 2nd under the claim that they did not anticipate modern firearms.

The amendment process is the mechanism built into the Constitution to handle changing times. It was made difficult so we could not "change government long established for light and transient causes". But change it we can, and that is the only acceptable method of changing what it means.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment NEVER states an illegal alien can have a baby in this country and have automatic citizenship..
 
Ice Dancer said:
The 14th amendment NEVER states an illegal alien can have a baby in this country and have automatic citizenship..
Click to expand...
Well, the way you worded the above, you are correct. The illegal immigrant does not get citizenship by having a baby.

But the baby does.

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.
Click to expand...
A lot of people are having problems with the "born ... in the United States" causing problem when illegal immigrants claim special immigrant status because one or more of their children are U.S. citizens. And yes, it is a problem. That does NOT mean, however, that we simply ignore what the Constitution SAYS in favor of what we WANT it to mean. If we want it to mean something different, then we amend it. Any other method only leads to government, through the appellate courts system, having the authority to tell us what it means - and that will almost invariably be in favor of more government power over the people.

No one, including those who wrote it, has ever claimed the Constitution is a perfect document. Times and circumstances change, sometimes in a manner that results in problems when we follow the Constitution. But we ignore it and misuse the courts to bypass it at our peril. Discounting the Bill of Rights - which are for practical purposes a part of the original document, and the two prohibition mistakes - there are 15 examples proving we CAN make the appropriate changes when they are needed. Do it right, or don't do it at all.
 
When the 14th amendment was created there were no illegal immigrants because there weren't any quotas. You just had to come to America and live here for a period of time to get citizenship. The fact that congress later introduced quotas to artificially limit immigration doesn't change shit about the 14th amendment.
 
Good Luck said:
A lot of people are having problems with the "born ... in the United States" causing problem when illegal immigrants claim special immigrant status because one or more of their children are U.S. citizens. And yes, it is a problem.
Click to expand...

The child can't sponsor citizenship until it reaches the age of 21. It'd be less time consuming to just go the regular route than to have a baby and wait until it's 21 for it to sponsor your citizenship so that you can go through an expedited process.

The 14th amendment insures that there never again will be an underclass of second class citizens in the US, because eventually ever group here is going to be integrated as citizens. That is to beneficial to discard.
 
MakeMeASandwichBitch said:
When the 14th amendment was created there were no illegal immigrants because there weren't any quotas. You just had to come to America and live here for a period of time to get citizenship. The fact that congress later introduced quotas to artificially limit immigration doesn't change shit about the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
And unless we wish to grant them "Undocumented Diplomat" status and only deport them if they break the laws then they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and if they are born here they are citizens.
 
MakeMeASandwichBitch said:
The child can't sponsor citizenship until it reaches the age of 21. It'd be less time consuming to just go the regular route than to have a baby and wait until it's 21 for it to sponsor your citizenship so that you can go through an expedited process.

The 14th amendment insures that there never again will be an underclass of second class citizens in the US, because eventually ever group here is going to be integrated as citizens. That is to beneficial to discard.
Click to expand...
Why would this matter? The child gives them an anchor, allows them to collect welfare for the child, and almost always grants them a permanent resident status until the child reaches majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top