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.
Guys, I know it's complicated, but try to stay with me. It's called a hypothetical. A thought experiment. I'm just throwing out ideas here.
The hypothesis I'm getting from you guys is that birthright citizenship is bad. So let's go with that! If it's bad, why give it to ANYONE? Make a case!
Since you claim your argument as "hypothetical" (theory only, no facts) your entire argument is without merit on this subject. Just a waste of bandwidth.
[quote=tigrs99;20509068]I believe in the US Constitution and protection in rights of every person whether he is legal or illegal. Just because some is not legal does not mean he don't have any rights.[/quote]
Actually. as written, it does mean illegals do not have the rights of citizens. Any other meaning or intrepretation of it comes from the lawyers of those with an agenda to address.
No I don't agree with your point, I pointed that out in my comment. Your analogy is a false premise. As I stated, The 2nd Amendment has already been "interpreted" numerous times through SCOTUS, BRC has only been interpreted a few times and in each case the parents were shown as being here with the consent of the government and that the parents owed allegiance to the US (Wong Kim Ark).You are under some sort of impression that the 14th Amendment ["re-interpreted"] would require amending for that "re-interpretation", when it only needs to be clarified by Congress with an INA, SCOTUS with a challenge, or DoS to simply change the definition back to what it was (as it was changed in 2009 by Progressives in office).
That's cool, but we're talking about birthright citizenship. We're talking about the BABY, not the PARENTS. Someone who is born here isn't an alien, since they didn't come from somewhere else. And the constitution as it currently stands agrees with that viewpoint.
The USC does not agree with that viewpoint. You are attempting to justify your viewpoint based on what you believe the USC to be saying, all based on your "interpretation" of Plyler vs Doe. I bet you believe the USC can be re-interpreted to today's definitions as a "living" document and placing the words and phrases into an entirely new context to fit today's criteria completely removing any context and reason for the original intent of the words and phrases.
No I don't agree with your point, I pointed that out in my comment. Your analogy is a false premise. As I stated, The 2nd Amendment has already been "interpreted" numerous times through SCOTUS, BRC has only been interpreted a few times and in each case the parents were shown as being here with the consent of the government and that the parents owed allegiance to the US (Wong Kim Ark).You are under some sort of impression that the 14th Amendment ["re-interpreted"] would require amending for that "re-interpretation", when it only needs to be clarified by Congress with an INA, SCOTUS with a challenge, or DoS to simply change the definition back to what it was (as it was changed in 2009 by Progressives in office).
Oh boy with you and the armchair lawyering again. Dude, you're completely wrong, I am not under the impression that the 14th would require amendment for re-interpretation. The point was about the relative infallibility of the 14th as compared to the 2nd. Both are equally open to reinterpretation. That's all. Stop reading your bizzaro agenda into every tiny comment.
Oh boy with you and the armchair lawyering again. Dude, you're completely wrong, I am not under the impression that the 14th would require amendment for re-interpretation. The point was about the relative infallibility of the 14th as compared to the 2nd. Both are equally open to reinterpretation. That's all. Stop reading your bizzaro agenda into every tiny comment.
Dude.... arm chair lawyering....laughable!
Dude.... you're completely wrong.... right!
If both are open to re-interpretation as you claim, then why is it you state: We're talking about the BABY, not the PARENTS. Someone who is born here isn't an alien, since they didn't come from somewhere else. And the constitution as it currently stands agrees with that viewpoint. I mean if that is your interpretation then why all the grief over others interpretations? Or is yours the only interpretation? If Wong Kim Ark grants BRC to all born here, then why did Grey narrowly define BRC to those whose parents are here with the consent of our government and show that they owed allegiance to the US with that consent? Why is it that Bouve (footnote 10 of Plyler) is arguing in 1912 that children born to illegals should be granted BRC (since the parents are domiciled here and project temporary allegiance by their own fiat) which would negate your claim through Wong Kim Ark. Your interpretation of Plyler also falls flat as it is only about the EPC and pointing out that illegal aliens are subject to civil and criminal law (as defined through Wong Kim Ark as originated in the Schooner Exchange)?
Dude.... arm chair lawyering....laughable!
Dude.... you're completely wrong.... right!
Um, so now you're claiming you ARE a real lawyer???
Quote:
If both are open to re-interpretation as you claim, then why is it you state: We're talking about the BABY, not the PARENTS. Someone who is born here isn't an alien, since they didn't come from somewhere else. And the constitution as it currently stands agrees with that viewpoint. I mean if that is your interpretation then why all the grief over others interpretations?
Uh, because that was a positive discussion of how things ACTUALLY STAND RIGHT NOW. As of RIGHT NOW, people born here are citizens even if their parents are illegal.
Discussions about reinterpretations are normative.
As was pointed out in here many times the 14th on birthright citizenship wouldn't even have to be amended just re-interpreted by the Supreme Court. You keep mixing apples with oranges. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with birthright citizenship even though you keep trying to make this another "what if" on a totally unrelated amendment.
I was trying to draw an example of one reason why it is so hard to change an amendment, nothing more. as for re-interpreting the courts have always backed up how it stands now. better to go about it in another way would get you there faster
I should take the opinion of "numerous people in here who clarified particular 'liquid reigns"? lol the way it was intended, is the way the courts have backed it up time and time again. I prefer the collective minds of hundreds of USSCJ to liguid reins there is no easy button.
as for other countries, I could give a rip what they do.
Please cite the court cases that have “backed up time and time again” Birthright Citizenship for the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS.
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.
I should take the opinion of "numerous people in here who clarified particular 'liquid reigns"? lol the way it was intended, is the way the courts have backed it up time and time again. I prefer the collective minds of hundreds of USSCJ to liguid reins 
