President is really winding up the anti-immigrant crowd - order to end birthright citizenship

Page 17 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I know what it says. Do you think illegal immigration was an issue or even a thought when the 14th amendment was written? Do you know why the 14th amendment even came into existence?

HINT: It wasn't for illegals getting citizenship for their babies.

There were no immigration laws when the 14th amendment was ratified. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Any white person from a non-hostile country could enter. As early as 1802 the native born children of people who did so were considered citizens. Requirements varied early on, but all male immigrants could ultimately apply for citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...ation_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,955
37,044
136
1. your basic argument is "we should be the same as everyone else" when it comes to migration.

No, it isn't at all. You have never seen me say that "we should be the same as everyone else".

We should revise the 14th amendment to correct it, it was not meant to allow anchor babies.

I am paying attention, it is a country of laws and obeying those laws. Illegal entry into the country is breaking the law. There are ways to enter legally.

We should correct the 2nd Amendment to specify only 1780s period weapons made with traditional methods if we're going to start fixing this thing up.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,610
4,668
136
Hint: you dont like the 14th hence your very biased and historically incorrect interpretation.

The use of the word "persons" isnt accidental and makes clear what the intent was: citizenship extends to everyone born here.

It also makes clear that "persons" who arent diplomats are subject to the laws of the US.

You and your fellow nativists are attempting to destroy what the constitution stands for, and like the President, see it as an inconvenience to your desired policy outcomes, most of which are grounded in flat out racism.

You have your opinion, I have mine...

Hint: I think you are wrong.

Why do you think the 14th amendment was written? Tell me I would like to hear your opinion.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,610
4,668
136
Fine, ammend it as the Constitution defines, 2/3 majority in both houses, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures, and 38 out of 50 of States voting to ratifying it ...Good Luck.
Isn't that what you righties always say about the 2nd?

As I said in my earlier post that an Exec Order won't do it it should be changed by congress etc...
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,537
26,601
136
We should correct the 2nd Amendment to specify only 1780s period weapons made with traditional methods if we're going to start fixing this thing up.

That is obviously the only thing they could have been thinking when they wrote it. Since modern semi-automatic weapons didn't exist then. I'm sure @pcgeek11 will agree.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,610
4,668
136
There were no immigration laws when the 14th amendment was ratified. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Any white person from a non-hostile country could enter. As early as 1802 the native born children of people who did so were considered citizens. Requirements varied early on, but all male immigrants could ultimately apply for citizenship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...ation_and_naturalization_in_the_United_States

As I stated in my post immigration wasn't an issue when it was written. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with immigration. They are using it as a loophole. That loophole should be closed.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,211
16,667
136
As I said in my earlier post that an Exec Order won't do it it should be changed by congress etc...

Thank you for the clarification.
As I said earlier, I have no idea if anchor babies are really a significant problem, I have no idea if it’s a net positive to society or a net negative.
I do know it would be great to have our representatives talk about it and come to some agreement where 2/3rd of them agree.
Seems to be completely impossible post 2008.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,610
4,668
136
Oh I'm sorry, when someone realizes how irrational they are being I didn't realize you were the arbitrator of what are the acceptable reasons for changing ones mind.

So you'll listen to people who tell you what you want to hear but you won't listen to those same people when they tell you they were wrong. You are a brainless parrot, got it.

And that is all you have... You lose.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
As I stated in my post immigration wasn't an issue when it was written. The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with immigration. They are using it as a loophole. That loophole should be closed.

It has everything to do with immigration. The citizenship of native born white children was settled in 1802 regardless of the country of origin of their parents. The 14th amendment extended that to all people born on US soil.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
It doesn't matter that "His wife set him straight". So we should go along with whatever Harry's wife says now? The anchor baby thing wasn't even a thought when the 14th amendment was written and goes against the intent of the amendment. It is a loophole that is being used and should be closed. I have always thought this even before now.

Go ahead and show us your real intellectual power and call me some more names.

LOL
No, it does not go against the intent of the 14th amendment. In fact, it aligns exactly with the 14th amendment's original intent that America is a FREE country, and that every person born on American soil is born FREE, with that freedom guaranteed by equal protection of the laws.

And no gives a shit what Harry said once, least of all you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Thank you for the clarification.
As I said earlier, I have no idea if anchor babies are really a significant problem, I have no idea if it’s a net positive to society or a net negative.
I do know it would be great to have our representatives talk about it and come to some agreement where 2/3rd of them agree.
Seems to be completely impossible post 2008.

They're not even anchors. Parents of American citizen children are deported quite regularly, often taking those children with them. It's a bullshit right wing meme.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,537
26,601
136
They're not even anchors. Parents of American citizen children are deported quite regularly, often taking those children with them. It's a bullshit right wing meme.

Just had a case here in Detroit area. A woman was deported and her 3 children left with her. The father and her husband is a citizen as are her children.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Just had a case here in Detroit area. A woman was deported and her 3 children left with her. The father and her husband is a citizen as are her children.

Yeh, well, fuck them little brown bastids! Not real Murricuhns! Shoulda picked better parents!

(I pity anybody who doesn't recognize that as sarcasm.)
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
its amazing how much shit is explained to pcgeek and how little he learns.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,524
15,405
136
And that is all you have... You lose.

That's all I've got because that's all you've given me. Lol!

The only thing I lose is my time since I'm dealing with a brainless parrot who unwilling to confront their own stupidity when it's pointed out to them.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,524
15,405
136
its amazing how much shit is explained to pcgeek and how little he learns.

Learning happens when one is willing to learn.

He's a brainless parrot which is why his posts only go as far a repeating talking points. Its why when confronted or challenged on his talking points he is unable to respond in any meaningful way. If knowledge was beauty, his would only be skin deep.
 
Reactions: Meghan54

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,610
4,668
136
The "screwed up law" in this case is the Constitution. So get cracking on that Constitutional amendment if you want to changed.


It seems that it is being looked at, but the odds aren't too good.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
Remember, conservatives are constitutionalists only when it comes to white christian religious freedoms and guns. Any amendment that anyone they don't like can benefit from like say the first amendment which they have constantly attacked and this as well, they want changed or gone.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,610
4,668
136
It has everything to do with immigration. The citizenship of native born white children was settled in 1802 regardless of the country of origin of their parents. The 14th amendment extended that to all people born on US soil.

Not in the original intent as there were no immigration laws at the time, as you pointed out.

https://usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html

13th Amendment
Slavery was an institution in America in the 18th and 19th centuries. The Southern states, with their agricultural economies, relied on the slavery system to ensure the cash crops (cotton, hemp, rice, indigo, and tobacco, primarily) were tended and cultivated. Slaves were not unknown in the North, but abolition in the North was completed by the 1830's. In 1808, the Congress prohibited the slave trade, not a year later than allowed in the Constitution. A series of compromises, laws, acts, and bills tried to keep the balance between the slave states and the non-slave states. For a more thorough history of slavery, see the Slavery Topic Page.

South Carolina voted to secede from the United States as a result of Abraham Lincoln's election to the Presidency. Lincoln had, over time, voiced strong objections to slavery, and his incoming administration was viewed as a threat to the right of the states to keep their institutions, particularly that of slavery, the business of the states. More states seceded, eleven in all, forming the Confederate States of America. The secession movement led to the Civil War. In the waning days of the war, which ran from 1861 to 1865, the Congress approved an amendment to abolish slavery in all of the United States. Once the CSA was defeated, approval of the 13th Amendment was quick in the Northern states. By the end of 1865, eight of the eleven Confederate states had also ratified it. Proposed on January 31, 1865, it was ratified on December 6, 1865 (309 days). Eventually, all of the CSA states except Mississippi ratified the 13th after the war; Mississippi ratified the amendment in 1995.

14th Amendment
The ratification of the 13th Amendment was a major victory for the North, and it was hoped that with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, the effects of slavery in the United States would quickly diminish. The original plan to readmit states after acceptance of the 13th was supported by President Andrew Johnson, but the Radical Republicans, as they became known, wanted more than just a return to normalcy. They wanted to keep the power they had attained during the war years. The South did not make it easy for Johnson, however, and the so-called Black Codes started to be passed in Southern states. Congressional inquiries into the Black Codes found them to be a new way of controlling ex-slaves, fraught with violence and cruelty.

The ensuing Reconstruction Acts placed the former CSA states under military rule, and prohibited their congressmen's readmittance to Congress until after several steps had been taken, including the approval of the 14th Amendment. The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days).

15th Amendment
The last of the Reconstruction Amendments, the 15th Amendment was designed to close the last loophole in the establishment of civil rights for newly-freed black slaves. It ensured that a person's race, color, or prior history as a slave could not be used to bar that person from voting. Though a noble idea, it had little practical effect for quite some time, as the Southern states found myriad ways to intimidate blacks to keep them from voting. The Congress passed the amendment on February 26, 1869, and it was ratified on February 3, 1870 (342 days).

Though ratification of the 15th Amendment was not a requirement for readmittance of the Confederate states to the Congress, one of the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts required that the states include a provision in their new constitutions that included a near-copy of the text of the 15th. All of the CSA states except Tennessee, which was immune from the Reconstruction Acts, eventually ratified the 15th Amendment.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,610
4,668
136
No, it does not go against the intent of the 14th amendment. In fact, it aligns exactly with the 14th amendment's original intent that America is a FREE country, and that every person born on American soil is born FREE, with that freedom guaranteed by equal protection of the laws.

And no gives a shit what Harry said once, least of all you.

LOL. I disagree. The 14th amendment had a specific intent when it was written.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
Remember, conservatives are constitutionalists only when it comes to white christian religious freedoms and guns. Any amendment that anyone they don't like can benefit from like say the first amendment which they have constantly attacked and this as well, they want changed or gone.

Remember, if there is anything the left has shown us over the years, it is that an amendment / item in the Bill of Rights can mean something for a couple of centuries then be open to interpretation when the mood of the contemporary times change. If he does anything to limit the 14A you only have yourselves to blame as you set the precedent with the constant attacks on the 2A.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |