U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Gilpin Co., CO
474 posts, read 485,577 times
Reputation: 174

Advertisements

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original intent of this Amendment was to give freed slaves citizenship. I don't think the authors of this Amendment ever anticipated this level of abuse. I've been lobbying for its repeal for along time among my friends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:14 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,158,210 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Maryland required a belief of the Christian faith to be naturalized. We should do the same.

thank the powers that Maryland doesn't define our eligibility statutes.

If we wanted to go by archaeic laws, then all Chinese immigrants, All slaves and children of slaves and non-white people could never be citizens. that also includes women
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:15 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,158,210 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilpin Girl View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original intent of this Amendment was to give freed slaves citizenship. I don't think the authors of this Amendment ever anticipated this level of abuse. I've been lobbying for its repeal for along time among my friends.
when first thought up, yes that was the intent, but the authors of the amendment realized that it would apply to all persons born and naturalized. which is why that language is placed into the amendment and no hwere does it state "only those children of slaves"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Gilpin Co., CO
474 posts, read 485,577 times
Reputation: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
Let's see - demanding that everyone carry their papers at all times and no birthright citizenship - sounds quite French to me.

I didn't know conservatives were such great admirers of France. I could've thought otherwise a few years ago. If they want to emulate those French policies, do they want to emulate French health care policy too?

And it's not like France doesn't have problems with illegal immigration. So obviously those policies don't keep out illegals.
The French can't get EVERYTHING wrong. Even if they were trying to they would have to get something right by mistake. This must be it! MaybeFrance's problem with illegal immigration is that they didn't act soon enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:17 PM
 
4,383 posts, read 8,709,481 times
Reputation: 2333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilpin Girl View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original intent of this Amendment was to give freed slaves citizenship. I don't think the authors of this Amendment ever anticipated this level of abuse. I've been lobbying for its repeal for along time among my friends.
The language is clear and there are no ambiguities. Children born to illegal alliens in the US are citizens, it's cut and dry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:17 PM
 
19,489 posts, read 13,225,807 times
Reputation: 4887
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Go for it, then.


Uhhh.... not really even close.

You were right only about the foreign ambassadors (and diplomatic staffs). The "subject to the jurisdiction" clause also exempts hostile occupying armies. But everybody else (to include tourists, clergy, or people just passing through)... their kids born on US soil are natural born American citizens regardless of any treaties with their home countries.
So they visit America, have a baby here, and when they try to return home their child is now a foreign born citizen of America? I do believe is specifically was meant to exclude clergy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:21 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,158,210 times
Reputation: 1832
what? In the US they'd be considered Natural Born US Citizens; in the home country of their parents, its whatever they determined their citizenship status. Its based on their country's laws, not ours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Gilpin Co., CO
474 posts, read 485,577 times
Reputation: 174
A lot of people are talking about it. Is there an actual organization working for its repeal? How do a sign the petition if no one has started one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:31 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,158,210 times
Reputation: 1832
repeal of what? this Arizona nonsense bill? it hasn't even been voted on, and it probably will not make it pass review in either legislative houses. Constitutionally it'd be illegal to even pass it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2010, 05:34 PM
 
7,541 posts, read 5,158,210 times
Reputation: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilpin Girl View Post
I wonder if there is any truth to this online story. It says the 14th amendment was unlawfully passed and is unconstitutional.
[/font]
Actually, that "conspiracy" is against the 16th Amendment and used by Tax protesters (frauds, liars, etc)

You're confusing the two.

The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866 and, by July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) ratified the amendment


ETA: Ahh sweeliberty and their non-supportive and of course non-factual website.

there were 2 states that wanted to rescind their approval of the 14th amendment, which were Ohio and New Jersey, but it happened at a time when 2 other states (Alabama and Georgia) ratified the amendment (thereby negating any efforts by Ohio and NJ to rescind their ratification).

3/4ths vote and approval was achieved, the amendment was passed lawfully and legally


Ohio and New Jersey eventually ratified the amendment again (after rescinding in January and February 1868) in 2003, but by that time, it didn't matter
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top