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.
Alas.... that requires one to actually be able to read.
Senator Howard's words here were spoken, not written, which accounts for at least some of the abuse of the statement by anti-immigrant apologists. But what he said actually contradicts your position explicitly.
First off... he does not say children of foreigners or children of aliens. He says "persons who are foreigners" and "aliens." And who are those persons? He tells you explicitly in the very next clause. They are those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."
He uses three clauses to describe the same exact thing... a repetitive rhetorical device that goes all the way back to the schools of rhetoric in classical Greece. Here let me count for you:
There is no conjunction between those three clauses, only commas. So they are three ways of describing the exact same thing.
Your first remark was very rude. Do you plan on responding to the members in here in that manner from now on? I suggest you don't and I will let it go at that.
Who's anti-immigrant? That is nothing but spin and lies. We are opposed to illegal immigration. You do know the diffference, don't you?
You consider your personal consistency insulting? Weird.
And "stupidity" is not an insult where you come from? Weird again.
That said, your opinion regarding the "stupidity" of a half millennium of Anglo-American common law is noted. It's hardly a firm basis for proposing an Amendment to the US COnstitution, but knock yourself out.
Because first and foremost, newborn infants are innocent of any crimes committed by their parents. Second, many of those babies grow up to be fine Americans, especially considering the magnified contribution of first and second generation Amercians to our national vitality and economic competitiveness. Third, because I consider the opposition to birthright citizenship to be founded primarily in an atavistic racist impulse that disgusts me.
Enough fortitude for you?
Every one of your responses have been snide and uncivil. No, when I say that making instant citizens out of the offspring of illegal trespassers is stupid it is about policy not a personal insult to anyone on this forum. Reading comprehension is essential, don't you think?
It has nothing to do with the innocence of the babies but setting policy that makes sense. It doesn't matter if some grow up to be good people and some bad. That hasn't a thing to do with it. Oh, here comes the race card just like clockwork. Just what race of baby are you talking about? What disgusts me is pulling the race card where it is unwarranted.
Your first remark was very rude. Do you plan on responding to the members in here in that manner from now on? I suggest you don't and I will let it go at that.
That's actually his normal MO. Look at his comments in every topic.
I am "decoding" nothing. I am correcting your egregious misinterpretation of Jacob Howard's statement according to the most basic rules of English grammar and syntax.
Further, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." From US v. Wong Kim Ark:
And finally, yes. Anti-immigrant. I did not choose that formulation by accident.
In the case of Wong Kim Ark the parents were here legally not illegally. Again, who is anti-immigrant? I don't know of one person in the forum who is anti-immigrant but anti-illegal immigration. You still don't know the difference between the two?
Because it is the same way that you and I gained our U.S. citizenship. It didn't matter who our parents were, or if they were citizens. If the definition was any different, don't you think 8 USC § 1401 (a) would have included the word "citizen" (for the parents) at that key location, like they did for the definitions below it?
Nonsense! There is no question about birthright citizenship when a child is born from citizen parents. I asked for your personal opinion on granting birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrant parents not to quote some part of a so-called law that you think supports it. If you don't plan to do that then why even respond to me?
Polls are biased, the questions are worded so that even if you disagree you end up supporting their side and are used to sway a nation.
This will preclude amnesty since "Most Americans" will have been polled to favor amnesty.
Just wait and see.
You really want to see how Americans feel then put it to a vote and let us decide.
Polls are biased but not because of the way they are worded. It's clear Rasmussen is a poll that is heavily Republican biased and it always has been. That is why Fox News quotes it nearly every time.
And to be honest Scott Rasmussen is smart. If his poll was objective and fair, it would not get press. Fox would stop quoting it and Gallup would be the only poll cited.
Patriotism first starts with respecting our immigration laws.
It sounds like you are talking about "nationalism", not specifically patriotism. The trouble with nationalism is that it can get colored; Nationalism excludes some that are citizens, because it is believed they do not conform to the defined identity.
Yeah, quite a few of the posts here come down to nationalism. I'm just wondering at what point I can bring up Katrina Bloch's dissertation. It does have at least one familiar character.
That's actually his normal MO. Look at his comments in every topic.
I noticed that to. Maybe he should read the TOS before he posts in this forum. When someone can't be civil that usually means they have no viable arugments and they use that as a defense to hide behind.
Nonsense! There is no question about birthright citizenship when a child is born from citizen parents. I asked for your personal opinion on granting birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal immigrant parents not to quote some part of a so-called law that you think supports it. If you don't plan to do that then why even respond to me?
If the word "citizen" can clearly be used in such a reference (as the lower definitions show it can), or a further outlined bullet definition made, why is it not? Why use that particular wording? 8 USC § 1401 (a) does not refer to parentage at all, but classifies how both you and I gained our U.S. citizenship.
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.
