Huckabee looking for help from Paul supporters?

What was the reason?

It sounds like Huckabee has a better take on it to me, though. He is saying it should only deny it to those who parents are illegal immigrants. If the parents are here legally then the child should get citizenship.
 
I think it's a good thing that the US has both of the common methods of granting citizenship. Birth by parents who are citizens, and birth on our soil. It prevenents the government from arbitrarily revoking citizenship from "undesirable" peoples.

Nations with only one method of granting citizenship have traditionally gone through headaches anyway... there was one Indian kid who was born in Kenya, and he wasn't an Indian citizen because he wasn't born on Indian soil, and he wasn't a Kenyan citizen since he wasn't born to Kenyan parents. He became indefinitely confined.
 
Watermark said:
That's idioitic. That was put into the constitution by much wiser men than them for very good reasons.
Click to expand...
Yeah well ya know Water, them wise men from a different time didn't have all these wetbacks coming over and stealing our jobs driving our unemployment rate all the way to 5% and overall adding to our economic strength. You have to have perspective here. Had there been mexicans back when the founder wrote that there constitution they would have had a citizenship by blood just like Germany did until 2000. Jus Sanguinis is the ONLY way to fly.
 
Watermark said:
I think it's a good thing that the US has both of the common methods of granting citizenship. Birth by parents who are citizens, and birth on our soil. It prevenents the government from arbitrarily revoking citizenship from "undesirable" peoples.
Click to expand...

If you amend to say those born to legal residents how does that allow for arbitrarily revoking citizenship.

Nations with only one method of granting citizenship have traditionally gone through headaches anyway... there was one Indian kid who was born in Kenya, and he wasn't an Indian citizen because he wasn't born on Indian soil, and he wasn't a Kenyan citizen since he wasn't born to Kenyan parents. He became indefinitely confined.
Click to expand...

Naturalization should be an easy process. But by granting citizenship on birth you are encouraging illegal activity.
 
Socrtease said:
Yeah well ya know Water, them wise men from a different time didn't have all these wetbacks coming over and stealing our jobs driving our unemployment rate all the way to 5% and overall adding to our economic strength. You have to have perspective here. Had there been mexicans back when the founder wrote that there constitution they would have had a citizenship by blood just like Germany did until 2000. Jus Sanguinis is the ONLY way to fly.
Click to expand...

The founders rejected birthright citizenship, explicitly. The founders believed in the social compact theory of citizenship. They were right.
 
After conferring at the local gossip center at the local country store, I have concluded that Hucklberrys printing money mania was not understood by many americans. I got what was up with huckelberry and all that pringing more money talk ?

You gotta remember this is the country that elected Bush twice, gotta dumb down to the Republican voters.
 
Watermark said:
The founders rejected birthright citizenship because of slavery, you fucking doofus.
Click to expand...

No, dumbshit, they rejected it because of the social compact theory of citizenship. Read the D of I.

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121
 
RStringfield said:
No, dumbshit, they rejected it because of the social compact theory of citizenship. Read the D of I.

"Our ancestors... possessed a right, which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going in quest of new habitations, and of there establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as, to them, shall seem most likely to promote public happiness." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:185, Papers 1:121
Click to expand...

And why do you think they accepted that retarded, baseless theory?

Because of slaves. Dumbfuck. Why would TJ put into effect a constitution that deprived him of his most valued properties?
 
Watermark said:
And why do you think they accepted that retarded, baseless theory?

Because of slaves. Dumbfuck. Why would TJ put into effect a constitution that deprived him of his most valued properties?
Click to expand...
Ummm TJ didn't write the Constitution. He didn't even participate in it. He was in France. The D of I has NO precendential value since it was a decree of divorce from our british ruler and was NEVER intended to be anything BUT that. It has no force of law and has no relationship to the Constitution other than some people who signed it were also involved with the Constitution.
 
And why do you think the founders would leave in such a grand flaw in the constitution, that's so easily abusable by the government to hurt people, other than their subservience to slave power?
 
It's right there in the D of I and you have nothing to back you. You think it retarded and baseless to reject the notion that each person is the property of the sovereign? Dumbass nAHZi.

The slaves would not have been citizens regardless of birthright citizenship, retard, just as wome were not.

Also, there is an argument to be made that illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US and are therefore not citizens under the 14th.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top