What the fuck are you yapping about, fake lawyer.
Are you trying to fabricate a SCOTUS ruling that hasn't happened?
Trump was present and Ketanji-Brown fell apart.
This isn't going to go your way, Comrade.
I told you sycophants the constitution was clear!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
What the fuck are you yapping about, fake lawyer.
Are you trying to fabricate a SCOTUS ruling that hasn't happened?
Trump was present and Ketanji-Brown fell apart.
This isn't going to go your way, Comrade.
Bullshit.
The Trump team tore the open borders clowns to shreds.
You'll lose 5-4, along party lines.
Rin, rin away
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I see the argument here as very simple: There are clearly two cases where birth right citizenship should NOT be granted:
1. You entered the country illegally or on criminal grounds. Your crime should not be rewarded in any way, shape, or form. Thus, you have a kid here, that child is NOT a citizen.
2. You came here on a tourist or business visa for a short period of time and have a kid while in the US. Your intent based on your visa was you were coming here with the intention of returning to your home nation. No citizenship for your kid. If you lied about your purpose to get that visa, then it is the same as one. We do not reward liars and criminals for their actions. If your intentions were good, it shouldn't matter to you that your child is not an American citizen.
In those two cases, there should NOT be any right to citizenship on birth in the US.
1. You entered the country illegally or on criminal grounds. Your crime should not be rewarded in any way, shape, or form. Thus, you have a kid here, that child is NOT a citizen.
2. You came here on a tourist or business visa for a short period of time and have a kid while in the US. Your intent based on your visa was you were coming here with the intention of returning to your home nation. No citizenship for your kid. If you lied about your purpose to get that visa, then it is the same as one. We do not reward liars and criminals for their actions. If your intentions were good, it shouldn't matter to you that your child is not an American citizen.
In those two cases, there should NOT be any right to citizenship on birth in the US.
Nomad
Verified User
There's no cogent argument as to why it's bad for America, so what's the point?
People who are born here as citizens to parents who aren't, are probably on average, more likely to develop a greater appreciation for their citizenship, partly because their parents remember the hardships they suffered back home and keep them reminded of how much better life is here than where they came from.
So you're actually equating birthright citizenship to wife beating and slavery?
That is one of the most stunningly stupid comments I've ever heard.
Like I said above... Americans who are born of parents whose citizenship goes back multiple generations, tend to take this country for granted and treat the great things this country has to offer like they're no big deal or like they're owed to them. People who are born to immigrants and whose citizenship does not go back beyond their own, are probably more likely to appreciate it, to work harder to keep it and to be more respectful of our laws.
Obviously that's not 100% true, but what is?
Just because someone was born into a family that traces its citizenship roots back a couple of hundred years, does not automatically mean they're good citizens.
I'm wondering how many J6 insurrectionist rioters who tried to destroy our government were from families with long-standing citizenship.
I wonder how many MAGA assholes who put that POS trump into the WH and cheer for him every time he drags this country a little farther into his sewer come from families with long-standing citizenship.
If you want to change anything citizenship related with the intent of benefitting the country, let's talk about ending the birthright citizenship of MAGA scum.
Nomad
Verified User
If the child is too young to fend for themselves or would face harmful conditions in their parents' homeland, they should absolutely be granted citizenship.
Bullshit.
In the case of those who advocated for the overthrow of our government and supported those who tried to overturn the results of a fair national election, there should NOT be any right to citizenship on birth in the US.
FastLane
Verified User
Elk v Wilkins was decided by the SCOTUS in 1994 and Elk who was born within the territory of the United States was not given birth right citizenship because he owed his allegiance to another government.(the Winnebago reservation) The is no difference to a baby born in America of two Mexican parents.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
So, you side with the criminals, hum? Nice to know.
Nomad
Verified User
Such an ironic statement coming from someone who sides with trump.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I don't "side with Trump." I am anti-Left.
Nomad
Verified User
Yeah, that's what they all say nowadays.
Too embarrassed to admit it I guess.
Can't blame you all for that.
Oh, and I don't side with criminals.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Yes, you do. You are all for illegal immigration and stopping their deportation. You revile ICE and want the agency abolished. That makes you for open borders and, in turn, turning a blind eye to all the problems and crime illegals produce.
(Now you'll post up that tired canard about how illegals cause less crime, I'll wager)
This case is about whether birthright citizenship is constitutional. It is. However, with the Americans having fewer children, we need more people. They will grow up to become workers and contribute to our society.
You are changing the subject.
You have a poor reading of Elk.
You clearly misunderstand Elk. You see, being born in an Indian reservation actually meant he was not under the jurisdiction of the United States, he was not subject to US law.
However, a person here illegally IS subject to US jurisdiction and law.
If the demoncrats lose anchor babies, they lose massively. Disaster looms on all sides for the Marxists. The SAVE act curtails election fraud, and anchor babies are the dependency the demoncrats intend to as a replacement for the black bloc that they are losing.
So how does allowing anchor babies and their extended families in solve this? Wouldn't a more orderly immigration system with proper vetting be more beneficial if a shrinking population is in fact a problem? Which of course is bullshit because no population ponzi scheme is going to fix our financial woes. We would only need more workers to pay benefits owed to existing Americans then who's going to pay for that generation's? You can't exponentiate yourself out of bad fiscal management.
There is no pressing need for more workers if there is less population it's just math combined with common sense. And I didn't ask about constitutionality anyway but of course you couldn't help yourself. You are the one changing the subject I asked one simple question. I don't give a shit what the fake lawyer OP tried to make this all about because he's a fucking low IQ loser.
I side with Trump on most things. Including his fake convictions.
The Democrats are always wrong and dishonest so it's not hard.
And then we have the grim reaper bot cunt with dislike on autopilot. How cute. Annoying in a piss ant on the kitchen counter type of way.
But guys like me are just happy to have followers even if they are used up groupies.