SmarterthanYou
rebel
if a child is born within the borders of the US, it is a citizen. period. end of story.
Birthright Citizenship
- Thread starter Canceled2
- Start date
if a child is born within the borders of the US, it is a citizen. period. end of story.
this would greatly stem the tide of illegal immigration. No longer could illegals come here to baby drop. Sounds like a good idea.
On the other hand, I wonder if it would be better if we did give citizenship to the kids, but then we deport the parents and separate them from their kids. That's also a solution, and if enforced, would keep the rabble at bay
On the other hand, I wonder if it would be better if we did give citizenship to the kids, but then we deport the parents and separate them from their kids. That's also a solution, and if enforced, would keep the rabble at bay
Not if the law is amended. period. end of story.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ftfy
I don't see how anyone could credibly claim that an amendment which states that all persons born in the United States are citizens thereof has the "unintended consequence" of all persons born in the United States being citizens thereof. It seems that was the intended consequence.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
You just want cheap labor for your fascist overlords, you sold out globalist fascist nutlicker.
Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
YEs. I am aware im being pulled into the military industrial complex agenda on this one. Sometimes the interests of the power structure do align with the interests of the citizenry. What can i say.
So tell me, when they wrote the Amendment were they taking into account people who may be here illegally?
Thanks~
He's attempting to say that it is a "right" and that it can't be defined as a "privilege"...The privilege being discussed is a right to citizenship or not- What is being said is that unless one parent has a right to that claim-there is no right to it's privileges.
But by all means let's parse the statement and split the hairs.
Personally I think it is a privilege that isn't a basic right. Otherwise there is no way to define "citizen", the entire planet would be citizens just as we believe the entire planet has certain rights granted by their Creator. Being a citizen isn't one of those rights. Non-citizens have rights just as we do, this isn't one of them.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
So tell me, when they wrote the Amendment were they taking into account people who may be here illegally?
did they have a path to citizenship back then? what were the immigration procedures prior to the 14th?
I don't know if they had any limit on immigration back then. While I know my history well, I don't have knowledge of every law ever passed throughout history.
Should we afford the privileges of citizenship based on proximity regardless of the legality of action to create the proximity?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
if we're talking strictly being a citizen, I find it difficult to disallow a human that was actually born on US soil, the status of US citizen, regardless of the parents heritage.
So tell me, when they wrote the Amendment were they taking into account people who may be here illegally?
I don't know. I do know that at the time it was drafted an ratifies other countries had restrictive immigration laws such that it was not unforeseeable for the issue of illegal immigrants and birth-right citizenship to be considered.
But you don't know if they considered it, and in fact have no evidence thereof. So your statement about how you "couldn't understand" was just bull crap?
Fair enough. While I generally agree and do not argue that they are "not citizens", I do not quite get why you say he wasn't sent there for that. I'm reasonably sure he ran on a platform that was against illegal immigration and probably even stated he'd produce such an amendment while he ran.
Good Luck
New member
Then again that could be one reason they included the qualifying phrase "..and under the jurisdiction thereof.." If the parents are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. (ie: not here legally?) then birthright citizenry would not be conveyed. We already have instances in which simply being born within U.S. borders does not convey citizenship, such as children born of long-term foreign diplomats living in the U.S. Why would illegal residency not have the same effect?
If they are "not under the jurisdiction thereof" it would mean we could not prosecute them for crimes. That portion was added to ensure that Diplomats kids would be citizens of their own nation. We didn't want any of that riff-raff soiling our shores. European diplomats are kinda icky. This was also added to ensure that Indian Tribes that maintained their own national identity wouldn't be citizens. We couldn't have any of that now, could we?
Good Luck
New member
There are already exceptions to automatic U.S. citizenship for simply being born within U.S. borders. That is why there is the qualifying phrase "...and under the jurisdiction thereof..."
No, based on the language of the amendment, it is clear that the framers of the amendment intended that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, regardless of their status, would be citizens. As a consequence, all persons born in the United States are citizens. It was the intended result.
At best, you have an unforeseen (but foreseeable) consequence, not an unintended consequence.