2nd Amendment: This motherfucker is sacrosanct.
14th Amendment: Should be changed immediately since the authors may not have foreseen current day issues.
Conservative ideological consistency in action folks.
LOL. I disagree. The 14th amendment had a specific intent when it was written.
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.
2nd Amendment: This motherfucker is sacrosanct.
14th Amendment: Should be changed immediately since the authors may not have foreseen current day issues.
Conservative ideological consistency in action folks.
One you appear to be ignoring.
Nope, if we're amending the constitution to fix "loopholes" I'm going to want a say on some other items.
2nd Amendment: This motherfucker is sacrosanct.
14th Amendment: Should be changed immediately since the authors may not have foreseen current day issues.
Conservative ideological consistency in action folks.
You have never heard me say anything about the 2nd amendment and not being able to change it as needed. Of course we would have to follow the law to change it, the same as the 14th. I have no issue with that. You implying something different about me is just a lie.
I'm not going to call you names over your thoughts on the 2nd amendment. Go for it.
It is still a straw man argument when brought up in a discussion about the 14th amendment and anchor babies.
I don't think I've called you any names.
No, it's not because of the line of argument you've taken.
Your response every time is something vaguely defiant like "come on and try it". If we're going to argue intent though that opens up the entire can of constitutional worms not just the parts you don't like .
This is all so much shouting into a hurricane anyway since the probability of any amendments passing and being ratified in our lifetimes seems about nil. You can complain at length about how the 14th wasn't meant to apply to this situation (which historically is a questionable assertion at best) but it's fruitless.
It is shouting into a hurricane, I agree. Trumps EO will not work and we all know it. But the point about the original intent of the 14th amendment isn't questionable in the least. Illegal immigration and anchor babies didn't exist at the time. It was well documented the intent of the 14th amendment.
It is shouting into a hurricane, I agree. Trumps EO will not work and we all know it. But the point about the original intent of the 14th amendment isn't questionable in the least. Illegal immigration and anchor babies didn't exist at the time. It was well documented the intent of the 14th amendment.
It may be hard for people to wrap their heads around but 1800s America was, politically, insanely pro-immigration. Contemporary accounts indicate that indeed the idea was that anybody who came here could become a citizen in short order and that any child born on US soil was automatically a citizen. That this was an additional intent of the 14th, the primary being to ensure the irrevocable permanency of citizenship for former slaves and their descendants, does not make it less true.
It’s a pointless argument. Everyone sees it one way or the other. Similar to the well trained militia part for the 2nd. I know we both interpret that very differently.
Again it sure would be great if our elected people could do some studies, talk about what needs to be changed vs what needs to stay, then come out with something 2/3rds of them agree with in some form.
Bonus points if it tackles multiple things like the boarder wall, the overall immigration process and maybe voting rights or standards. The type agreement where everyone gets something but nobody gets everything type deal.
I disagree, but that is life...
When the House of Representatives first approved the measure that would eventually become the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not contain language guaranteeing citizenship.[18] On May 29, 1866, six days after the Senate began its deliberations, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) proposed language pertaining to citizenship. Following extended debate the next day, the Senate adopted Howard’s language.[19] Both chambers subsequently approved the constitutional amendment without further discussion of birthright citizenship,[20] so the May 30, 1866 Senate debate offers the best insight into Congressional intent.
Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain meaning:
“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]
This understanding was universally adopted by other Senators. Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.
Thanks, I had never read that before and will concede the point.
I still think that the 14th amendment is being used and subverted and should be changed to close the loophole provided in the 14th. Times have changed.
Really the only major concern voiced at the time was that the Chinese would stay and it doesn't take a professor of history to figure out the racial animus driving that worry, not the overall concept itself.
Native WASP's hated everybody back then. Some of 'em even hated each other. Some of 'em even hated Norwegians.
Thanks, I had never read that before and will concede the point.
I still think that the 14th amendment is being used and subverted and should be changed to close the loophole provided in the 14th. Times have changed.
times have changed, amendment 14 should be updated. Parent/s of the yet to be born child should be a legal us citizen/immigrant, not someone who comes in USA soil just to give birth to them just to get it.
I love it how conservatives latch onto the impossible solution- changing the 14th amendment. It won't happen. Period. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that's true. Changing the Constitution requires overwhelming support & Conservatives don't have that at all.
So they go for redefining the words of the English language so that the meaning is what they want it to be. Other than limited immunity for diplomats & their families all persons on US soil are under US jurisdiction. Claims to the contrary are simply absurd.
The GOP doesn't want immigration reform, at all. They want to keep it nicely fucked up so they can fear monger the living shit out of it every two years.