Birth Right Citizenship Will It Finally End?

Tobytone said:
YES, I'M JUST STEAMING MAD. ROFL I CAN'T TAKE THE CAPS OFF FOR YOU. YOU'VE GOT ME SOOOOOOO ANGRY.
Click to expand...
th



:giggle:
 
Jarod said:
I answered that question, some people, due to separate stand alone laws are not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...
So you contend that U.S. wanted to only grant birth citizenship to poor ignorant foreigners, and yet forbade it to foreign diplomats. Why?
 
Bigdog said:
So you contend that U.S. wanted to only grant birth citizenship to poor ignorant foreigners, and yet forbade it to foreign diplomats. Why?
Click to expand...
That is what they did.

Why? Because it was the end of the Civil War, and we were solving the problems cause by people being here and treated as if they were an underclass. Like the slaves were treated. When you write an Amendment you often use general language to solve problems that come up in the future. If they had wanted to they could have said, any former slaves or decedents thereof are citizens, they did not do that. People were not as mobile as they are now and they did not predict our current situation.

If you want it changed, you have to amend it. We could debate the merits of doing that, but you cant pretend it means something different than what it says, how the people and government used it at the time and what the clear intent was.

Its the same thing as pretending the 1St Amendment only applies to muskets.
 
Jarod said:
That is what they did.

Why? Because it was the end of the Civil War, and we were solving the problems cause by people being here and treated as if they were an underclass. Like the slaves were treated. When you write an Amendment you often use general language to solve problems that come up in the future. If they had wanted to they could have said, any former slaves or decedents thereof are citizens, they did not do that. People were not as mobile as they are now and they did not predict our current situation.

If you want it changed, you have to amend it. We could debate the merits of doing that, but you cant pretend it means something different than what it says, how the people and government used it at the time and what the clear intent was.
Click to expand...
Nothing needs to be amended, Pretender. Go learn what a subject of jurisdiction is.
Jarod said:
Its the same thing as pretending the 1St Amendment only applies to muskets.
Click to expand...
The 1st amendment does not apply to any weapon, Pretender. No amendment applies only to muskets.
 
Bigdog said:
I gave you the citation, the U.S. Constitution. :palm:

You said just being born here put you under U.S. jurisdiction. So yes, why did they just say jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Because there are a few exceptions. We are going round and round, you just keep returning to debunked arguments. You seem to understand your argument is incorrect but you just can’t stop. Unless you have something new…
 
Jarod said:
Because there are a few exceptions. We are going round and round, you just keep returning to debunked arguments. You seem to understand your argument is incorrect but you just can’t stop. Unless you have something new…
Click to expand...
No, I am standing still.

You are going round and round the question.
You contend that just being here puts you under U.S. jurisdiction. So, why did they just add "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"?

There is absolutely no reason to deny diplomats the same birthrights as all foreign citizens. And I gave you the citation you requested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top