Birthright Citizenship---Is It Time To Deep Six It?

[3rdnlng]

This is a subject that is going to get a lot of attention paid to it in the ensuing years. So far, the objections I've heard all revolve around any attempt to change it as an affront to hispanics and in turn hurting those proponents at the pols. I haven't made up my mind yet and would welcome a good debate. I can in all fairness say that I am leaning towards getting rid of birthright citizenship. It seems inherently wrong that a person can break our laws and be rewarded for it, not only for the citizenship given to their child but for the anchor baby benefits for the parents. It also pisses me off that we are being told that we have to cater to the hispanics in order to win elections. It galls me to think that some people think that our only hope is to surrender our country to another culture to stay viable.

 

I'm linking an article that claims that we do not need anything other than a legislative vote to change this practice of birthright citizenship. Let's actually have a discussion based on facts and well thought out opinions and keep the snarky partisan schit out of it.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/19/levin-cruz-trump-sessions-are-right-14th-amendment-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

 

Levin said that people are getting the clause wrong, “Because they’re result-oriented. Because they want to insist the Constitution says what it doesn’t say. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens.......

[Oxrock]

I'm a a Constitutional Originalist. So, no.

 

As such, you have to go by the meaning of words and the speachifying of the 14th amendments proponents which leads to children of citizens (naturalized or born here) are also citizens. At the time of passing the proponents of the amendment wrote as such to mean children whose parents were not subject to any foreign power. Therefore, the parents could not be citizens of another country. 1898 United States vs Wong Kim Ark pretty much assumed that if you were a LEGAL immigrant you were not subject to a foreign power any longer.

 

The case less than 100yrs later... 1982 Plyer vs Doe pretty much said Legal/Illegal...Toe-mato/Toe-Mahto... what's the dif? Eh? And here we are.

 

Just as the court was wrong in Plessy vs Ferguson, so they were also wrong with Plyer vs Doe (and Roe vs Wade, go look, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution).

[Magox]

3rd. There already exists a thread on this. Good old 14th

[/dev/null]

3rd. There already exists a thread on this. Good old 14th

/agree

 

and as I stated in the other thread, we're long overdue for a Constitutional Convention

[boyst]

I say in order to vote you simply have to pass a citizenship test every two years or four. The Constitution was written by men who understood this and at the time there were a great deal in this country who could not vote for a reason, they had no reason to be worth it.

[B-Large]

The concept that an illegal immigrant can have a child here and that child become a citizen is nonsensical. If my wife and I smuggled ourselves into France, had a child, and we're arrested by French authorities I would expected to be put on a plane at our expense back to the U.S.

 

I would never have the gall to go into another country illegally and expect them to rollover, make me a citizen, make me eligible for their benefits, etc.

 

TYTT takes a different opinion, but I see the use of two citizens of good standing have a child with granted citizenship... But this pthers stuff, nonsense.

[Tiberius]

I say in order to vote you simply have to pass a citizenship test every two years or four. The Constitution was written by men who understood this and at the time there were a great deal in this country who could not vote for a reason, they had no reason to be worth it.

What grade level should the test be?

[KD in CA]

What grade level should the test be?

 

Kindergarten. We want you to have at least a fighting chance.

 

 

Only those who are net contributors to the national/local treasury should be allowed to vote in those elections.

[Tiberius]

Kindergarten. We want you to have at least a fighting chance.

 

 

Only those who are net contributors to the national/local treasury should be allowed to vote in those elections.

So people with disabilities are out?!? Wow.

[KD in CA]

So people with disabilities are out?!? Wow.

 

People who are asking others to pay their living expenses are out.

 

If you are a lifetime net contributor who is now retired or disabled or whatever I suppose that would be fine. I haven't documented all the fine print.

[Tiberius]

People who are asking others to pay their living expenses are out.

 

If you are a lifetime net contributor who is now retired or disabled or whatever I suppose that would be fine. I haven't documented all the fine print.

OMG! Housewives won't be able to be citizens in your plan! The war on women intensifies!

[KD in CA]

OMG! Housewives won't be able to be citizens in your plan! The war on women intensifies!

 

The vast majority of housewives file joint tax returns, moron.

[Tiberius]

The vast majority of housewives file joint tax returns, moron.

Love it! Now a husband can literally get his wife declared an illegal by simply filing a separate tax return! Genius!

[/dev/null]

 

Only those who are net contributors to the national/local treasury should be allowed to vote in those elections.

Federal fiscal year starts 1 October

 

If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote.

[Tiberius]

Federal fiscal year starts 1 October

 

If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote.

War on the poor!

[KD in CA]

Love it! Now a husband can literally get his wife declared an illegal by simply filing a separate tax return! Genius!

 

"An illegal"?? What are you babbling about you retard?

Federal fiscal year starts 1 October

 

If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote.

 

Yup -- wouldn't be very difficult to figure out who should be eligible.

[B-Large]

Federal fiscal year starts 1 October

 

If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. There are a lot of hardworking Americans who benefit from those programs, because they need help shouldnt surrender their right to vote. Think about the slippery slope you're proposing. Whom else can easily be deemed unworthy, where is the line drawn? Edited August 22, 2015 by B-Large

[TakeYouToTasker]

Voting is a right, not a privilege. There are a lot of hardworking Americans who benefit from those programs, because they need help shouldnt surrender their right to vote. Think about the slippery slope you're proposing. Whom else can easily be deemed unworthy, where is the line drawn?

Voting absolutely is a privilege. Those who have no stake in the size and scope of government should not have a say in how it conducts it's business. Voting yourself someone else's money against their will using the governments guns and simply taking their money at gun point yourself are no different morally.

[Tiberius]

Voting absolutely is a privilege. Those who have no stake in the size and scope of government should not have a say in how it conducts it's business. Voting yourself someone else's money against their will using the governments guns and simply taking their money at gun point yourself are no different morally.

The Constitution says voting is a right. Ha!

[Rob's House]

Voting is a right, not a privilege. There are a lot of hardworking Americans who benefit from those programs, because they need help shouldnt surrender their right to vote. Think about the slippery slope you're proposing. Whom else can easily be deemed unworthy, where is the line drawn?

It's a lot simpler than you make it out. You have a right to vote. If you want the government to pay your bills you have to voluntarily forfeit the ability to exercise that right during the time in which the government is paying your bills. No one is taking any right away from you; it's a choice.

[Tiberius]

What, none of you right wingers want to drug test voters? You smoka the pot, you no vote

[Rob's House]

The concept that an illegal immigrant can have a child here and that child become a citizen is nonsensical. If my wife and I smuggled ourselves into France, had a child, and we're arrested by French authorities I would expected to be put on a plane at our expense back to the U.S.

 

I would never have the gall to go into another country illegally and expect them to rollover, make me a citizen, make me eligible for their benefits, etc.

 

TYTT takes a different opinion, but I see the use of two citizens of good standing have a child with granted citizenship... But this pthers stuff, nonsense.

I agree. The constitution does not in any way confer citizenship on the child of an illegal immigrant born on US soil. A straight reading of the amendment makes that clear.

What, none of you right wingers want to drug test voters? You smoka the pot, you no vote

You're an idiot.

[Tiberius]

I agree. The constitution does not in any way confer citizenship on the child of an illegal immigrant born on US soil. A straight reading of the amendment makes that clear.

 

You're an idiot.

At least I can read! I mean, what part of "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" don't you understand?

[Rob's House]

At least I can read! I mean, what part of "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" don't you understand?

I'm pretty clear on it, thanks. I imagine the part that !@#$s you up is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But like I said before, you're an idiot.

[Tiberius]

I'm pretty clear on it, thanks. I imagine the part that !@#$s you up is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But like I said before, you're an idiot.

 

What's your point about jurisdiction, would love to hear this.

[Rob's House]

What's your point about jurisdiction, would love to hear this.

 

I'm sure yours would be more entertaining. Please, do share.

[Tiberius]

I'm sure yours would be more entertaining. Please, do share.

 

You imagined right, that part :;(&$; me up. Does it change the fact a person born here is a citizen? Obviously the people interpreting it now do not think so.

[/dev/null]

At least I can read! I mean, what part of "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" don't you understand?

 

What part of

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Says I can't own an M14?

[Tiberius]

 

What part of

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

Says I can't own an M14?

Weapons have changed a lot since the 1790's. But people being born is pretty much the same

[Rob's House]

You imagined right, that part :;(&$; me up. Does it change the fact a person born here is a citizen? Obviously the people interpreting it now do not think so.

 

Wrong again. The matter is within the discretion of Congress, not a constitutional mandate.

[Tiberius]

 

Wrong again. The matter is within the discretion of Congress, not a constitutional mandate.

What discretion does Congress have on the matter?

[DC Tom]

I'm pretty clear on it, thanks. I imagine the part that !@#$s you up is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But like I said before, you're an idiot.

 

No, the part that !@#$s him up is that people are talking about changing it.

 

Because the Constitution is a living document (but not that part, apparently.)

[TakeYouToTasker]

The Constitution says voting is a right. Ha!

Rights don't come from government.

[boyst]

What discretion does Congress have on the matter?

your mom needs to take the lock off the parent filter so you can go do something else on the internet.

[Magox]

Krauthammers take on this issue among other things.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422864/donald-trump-deportation-republicans

[Rob's House]

Krauthammers take on this issue among other things.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422864/donald-trump-deportation-republicans

His constitutional analysis is wrong, but otherwise I think it's a pretty sensible piece.

[DC Tom]

His constitutional analysis is wrong,

 

How do you figure?

 

From everything I've read, the entire argument for the 14th not supporting birthright citizenship centers around what, exactly, "jurisdiction" means. Krauthammer's analysis seems to reflect that. What's more, his analysis is self-consistent overall: if mass deportation is going to cost half a trillion dollars because of due process, that's a de facto admission of jurisdiction over illegal immigrants.

 

You may not agree with his analysis (and that's fine), but I'm curious where it's factually wrong?

[Rob's House]

 

How do you figure?

 

From everything I've read, the entire argument for the 14th not supporting birthright citizenship centers around what, exactly, "jurisdiction" means. Krauthammer's analysis seems to reflect that. What's more, his analysis is self-consistent overall: if mass deportation is going to cost half a trillion dollars because of due process, that's a de facto admission of jurisdiction over illegal immigrants.

 

You may not agree with his analysis (and that's fine), but I'm curious where it's factually wrong?

He states as a matter of fact that the 14th grants birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, which is incorrect. The link 3rd put in the OP actually does a pretty good job of explaining some of the legislative history that informs the issue, but aside from that the wording itself is in conflict with Krauthammer's interpretation. The relevant portion of the amendment reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

 

It's relevant that is says AND rather than OR because it shows that they are two distinct conditions, both of which must be met, before citizenship is conferred. If mere presence on US soil were sufficient to establish jurisdiction then it would be unnecessarily cumulative to include the language about jurisdiction. There is a presumption that such language is not superfluous. Plus, "jurisdiction" in this context refers to control; the kind of control a government has over its citizens and resident aliens. The government does not exercise that control over people who are undocumented and within the country illegally. It can't. Ostensibly, it doesn't even have records or knowledge of their existence.

 

Like I said, the rest of the article is pretty sensible, but on this issue he's off the mark.

[B-Large]

Voting absolutely is a privilege. Those who have no stake in the size and scope of government should not have a say in how it conducts it's business. Voting yourself someone else's money against their will using the governments guns and simply taking their money at gun point yourself are no different morally.

As a libertarian, you of all people should stand up against people advocating voting upon condition... Once you begin to suspend rights based on economics metrics, what other rights enumerated to free people begin to come under attack? Becuase people dont vote how you prefer, doesnt mean they should be relegate to no vote, no voice...

[/dev/null]

Weapons have changed a lot since the 1790's.

So has American citizenship