Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. I would do the same to people who look Middle Eastern.
Profiling works.
I might be more sympathetic to legal Hispanic immigrants and citizens if the "Hispanic vote" didn't require us to give amnesty and have virtual open borders.
"You made your bed -- now lie in it."
Anyway, I carry my photo ID with me all the time.
The only time it's not in my pocket is when I am in the shower or asleep in bed.
I don't see what the big deal is about having a green card or some other proof of naturalization/citizenship in your wallet when you're out and about.
Oh come on: a person can resemble a nationality and not be part of one. Even if one is Hispanic, Mid Eastern, etc does mean we are going to waste the time or should profiling every one of them. There may be some cases where profiling makes sense, not routinely. The time and cost alone makes the plan stupid; intruding on privacy would be another reason to not attempt anything like that.
I am appalled at the number of illegals living here like a lot are, but profiling isn't the answer, nor is rounding them all up and shipping them back. Anyone who feels this is the answer isn't thinking straight.
Oh come on: a person can resemble a nationality and not be part of one. Even if one is Hispanic, Mid Eastern, etc does mean we are going to waste the time or should profiling every one of them. There may be some cases where profiling makes sense, not routinely. The time and cost alone makes the plan stupid; intruding on privacy would be another reason to not attempt anything like that.
I am appalled at the number of illegals living here like a lot are, but profiling isn't the answer, nor is rounding them all up and shipping them back. Anyone who feels this is the answer isn't thinking straight.
Nah, profile away.
There's nothing wrong with it, and it gives the police something to do.
The Constitution doesn't have to be changed. The Supreme Court just needs to re-visit the original intent of the 14th Amendment and have a case brought up against its current policy only practice of granting babies of illegal aliens our citizenship by birth. Besides, Obama has made many changes all by himself so if Trump were to do it it's a big deal now?
I believe you might be right about just needing to have the SCOTUS address this narrow point (I think that prior cases did not address the point directly with respect to kids with illegal aliens parents). However, we should keep in mind that under common law, anyone born in the US became a citizen. Then Dred Scott came, and the SCOTUS ruled that the birthright citizenship did not apply to slaves and former slaves. The 14th Amendment was adopted to overrule Dred Scott. So, what I am trying to say is that, the SCOTUS may very well decide that the pre-Dred Scott common law should govern and birthright citizenship applies to everyone. But I don't know how it would turn out.
But honestly, I am pretty certain that John Roberts is not going to rule to overturn such a critical matter that was accepted by our country for numerous decades. If either Roberts or Kennedy flips (a very good possibility), now there will be a precedent that upholds birthright citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
I am sure Trump's plan is to deport illegals as they are found not round them all up. That and implementing e-verify, denying them any benefits including birthright citizenship for their kids will make many if not most self-deport. What's with the separation of families rhetoric? The whole illegal family can leave together. Oh yeah, enforcing our immigration laws is akin to Nazism. Is that what you are saying?
To the extent that the kids are US citizens (there is no possible way any SCOTUS decision would retroactively take away citizenship, even if it might rule to invalidate future situations), they have every right to stay here and many would stay here with extended legal family members or probably even in foster care. Or they could go back to Mexico and come back when they are 18.
Talking about these rather draconian solutions to illegal immigration is a good idea at this point for the Republicans. If you take an emotionally charged issue like this, and make it life-and-death for many illegal Hispanics and Asian families (and note that, while they can't vote, they would have tons of American friends, family and church members, and countless other Americans, who would empathize with their plight) would result in a truly historic turnout by Hispanics, Asians and others. GOP would be dead in the water. They should wait until the election is over, quite honestly.
Then Dred Scott came, and the SCOTUS ruled that the birthright citizenship did not apply to slaves and former slaves.
That's not what Dred Scott was about.
It was about the right of southern slave owners to settle in the Western territories with their slaves.
Dred Scott overturned the right of the individual territories and new states to decide for themselves whether slavery would be allowed.
It argued that not allowing slavery in the new territories would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property and unequal treatment under the law, with southern slave owners being held to a different standard than northerners.
Basically, northerners would eventually come to have disproportionate political power in relation to the south, because southerners who settled in the new states would not be allowed to bring slaves, who counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of allocating congressional seats in Washington.
Quote:
The 14th Amendment was adopted to overrule Dred Scott.
No, the 14th amendment was adopted to give former slaves full U.S. citizenship.
Quote:
SCOTUS may very well decide that the pre-Dred Scott common law should govern and birthright citizenship applies to everyone.
Pre-Dred Scott common law did not allow birth-right citizenship. Otherwise the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S. would have been considered U.S. citizens.
I believe you might be right about just needing to have the SCOTUS address this narrow point (I think that prior cases did not address the point directly with respect to kids with illegal aliens parents). However, we should keep in mind that under common law, anyone born in the US became a citizen. Then Dred Scott came, and the SCOTUS ruled that the birthright citizenship did not apply to slaves and former slaves. The 14th Amendment was adopted to overrule Dred Scott. So, what I am trying to say is that, the SCOTUS may very well decide that the pre-Dred Scott common law should govern and birthright citizenship applies to everyone. But I don't know how it would turn out.
But honestly, I am pretty certain that John Roberts is not going to rule to overturn such a critical matter that was accepted by our country for numerous decades. If either Roberts or Kennedy flips (a very good possibility), now there will be a precedent that upholds birthright citizenship.
To the extent that the kids are US citizens (there is no possible way any SCOTUS decision would retroactively take away citizenship, even if it might rule to invalidate future situations), they have every right to stay here and many would stay here with extended legal family members or probably even in foster care. Or they could go back to Mexico and come back when they are 18.
Talking about these rather draconian solutions to illegal immigration is a good idea at this point for the Republicans. If you take an emotionally charged issue like this, and make it life-and-death for many illegal Hispanics and Asian families (and note that, while they can't vote, they would have tons of American friends, family and church members, and countless other Americans, who would empathize with their plight) would result in a truly historic turnout by Hispanics, Asians and others. GOP would be dead in the water. They should wait until the election is over, quite honestly.
Mick
True but who is to say it wit generate historic turnout among whites?
So, if there is no birth right citizenship, then at which age would US born kids actually become citizens? I guess everyone would have to apply for citizenship. Is he aware that he would have to amend the Constitution, which he would not be able to do without the States approval?
It was about the right of southern slave owners to settle in the Western territories with their slaves.
Dred Scott overturned the right of the individual territories and new states to decide for themselves whether slavery would be allowed.
It argued that not allowing slavery in the new territories would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property and unequal treatment under the law, with southern slave owners being held to a different standard than northerners.
Basically, northerners would eventually come to have disproportionate political power in relation to the south, because southerners who settled in the new states would not be allowed to bring slaves, who counted as 3/5ths of a person for the purpose of allocating congressional seats in Washington.
No, the primary holding in the case was:
Quote:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court . . .
No, the 14th amendment was adopted to give former slaves full U.S. citizenship.
Pre-Dred Scott common law did not allow birth-right citizenship. Otherwise the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S. would have been considered U.S. citizens.
Quote:
Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that what you are saying? 
