Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 10-30-2018, 09:19 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13714

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81 View Post
It's not false, you are attempting to create an arbitrary distinction without any historical context.
I have given plenty of historical context. Lengthy explanation including legal history and current US Nationality Law, in this post:

Post #83: Legal History of the 14th Amendment, and current US Nationality Law

I suggest you read it.

 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,738,058 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
I agree with this analysis of the Constitution 100%. Frankly, I do see how one could plausibly argue that “all persons born” means anything but everyone including illegal immigrants.

No doubt, however, we will see many posters who masquerade as “strict textualists” jettison their supposed principles to reach a particular anti-immigrant “interpretive” outcome because, to them, originalism only means being an originalist when it jives with their particular political beliefs.
What matters is the 150 year practice of recognizing birthright citizenship.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,464 posts, read 5,710,417 times
Reputation: 6098
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEPLimey View Post
Again, where does the 14th Amendment distinguish between green card holders (which did not even exist at the time it was drafted), temporary legal residents, visitors, and illegal immigrants?
Legal immigrants who were not born on US soil, like me, swear the oath when they get naturalized, and renounce the jurisdiction of their foreign country. Thus they would be covered by the 14th. All immigrants coming to the US legally, like through Ellis Island in the past, had to swear this oath at some point, since its been around since 1795 (officially) with various text changes.
I know US citizens don't really know about it, but here is the oath I had to swear in front of a judge, which illegal aliens/tourists do not swear:
Quote:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
The "help me God" part is optional.

Last edited by Gantz; 10-30-2018 at 09:32 AM..
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:21 AM
 
1,183 posts, read 708,421 times
Reputation: 3240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Depends on the interpretation now doesn't it? Yeah it does. It will go to SCOTUS and finally be resolved. It wasn't meant to be used as a citizenship generator for foreigners and everyone knows it but they cheat the system with it.
No doubt the NRA, with its hundreds of millions spent lobbying for a non-common sense but literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will be equally zealous in defending a literal interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Our constituonal rights after all!
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:21 AM
 
17,342 posts, read 11,281,227 times
Reputation: 40979
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
What matters is the 150 year practice of recognizing birthright citizenship.
And what is the significance of that? 150 years of wrong doesn't make it right.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,228 posts, read 27,603,964 times
Reputation: 16067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Legal immigrants who were not born on US soil, like me, swear the oath when they get naturalized. Thus they would be covered by the 14th.
I know US citizens don't really know about it, but here is the oath I had to swear in front of a judge, which illegal aliens do not swear:
Yes, you are covered by the 14th. Your children would be American citizens if they were born in the U.S.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:23 AM
 
2,362 posts, read 777,947 times
Reputation: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
And what is the significance of that? 150 years of wrong doesn't make it right.
Legal precedence is an important thing. If you don't want birthright citizenship, it's time to pass a constitutional amendment.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Denver CO
24,201 posts, read 19,210,098 times
Reputation: 38267
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Isn’t that just a smidge unconstitutional?

Not that Trump gives a damn about the constitution, mind you.
It's ok, though, because now we know that the next Democratic president can simply abolish the Second Amendment via EO.

that's how it works, apparently.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:25 AM
 
17,342 posts, read 11,281,227 times
Reputation: 40979
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadicDrifter View Post
Precedence is a legal term. If you don't want birthright citizenship, it's time to pass a constitutional amendment.
I'll disagree. You don't need another Constitutional amendment for that. You need to take a second look at the 14th amendment and how it was originally interpreted. That's what the Supreme Court does.
 
Old 10-30-2018, 09:25 AM
 
17,440 posts, read 9,268,656 times
Reputation: 11907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Depends on the interpretation now doesn't it? Yeah it does. It will go to SCOTUS and finally be resolved. It wasn't meant to be used as a citizenship generator for foreigners and everyone knows it but they cheat the system with it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosob...615424/photo/1

Oddly enough, the Federal Government actually published a Federal Record in 1866 when this Amendment was written. That should help SCOTUS. President Trump has figured out how to get it to the US Supreme Court.
The Leftists can be counted on to sue him for almost anything he does.
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top