3rdnlng Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 This is a subject that is going to get a lot of attention paid to it in the ensuing years. So far, the objections I've heard all revolve around any attempt to change it as an affront to hispanics and in turn hurting those proponents at the pols. I haven't made up my mind yet and would welcome a good debate. I can in all fairness say that I am leaning towards getting rid of birthright citizenship. It seems inherently wrong that a person can break our laws and be rewarded for it, not only for the citizenship given to their child but for the anchor baby benefits for the parents. It also pisses me off that we are being told that we have to cater to the hispanics in order to win elections. It galls me to think that some people think that our only hope is to surrender our country to another culture to stay viable. I'm linking an article that claims that we do not need anything other than a legislative vote to change this practice of birthright citizenship. Let's actually have a discussion based on facts and well thought out opinions and keep the snarky partisan schit out of it. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/19/levin-cruz-trump-sessions-are-right-14th-amendment-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/ Levin said that people are getting the clause wrong, “Because they’re result-oriented. Because they want to insist the Constitution says what it doesn’t say. Moreover, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the children of illegal aliens are American citizens....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I'm a a Constitutional Originalist. So, no. As such, you have to go by the meaning of words and the speachifying of the 14th amendments proponents which leads to children of citizens (naturalized or born here) are also citizens. At the time of passing the proponents of the amendment wrote as such to mean children whose parents were not subject to any foreign power. Therefore, the parents could not be citizens of another country. 1898 United States vs Wong Kim Ark pretty much assumed that if you were a LEGAL immigrant you were not subject to a foreign power any longer. The case less than 100yrs later... 1982 Plyer vs Doe pretty much said Legal/Illegal...Toe-mato/Toe-Mahto... what's the dif? Eh? And here we are. Just as the court was wrong in Plessy vs Ferguson, so they were also wrong with Plyer vs Doe (and Roe vs Wade, go look, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 3rd. There already exists a thread on this. Good old 14th Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 3rd. There already exists a thread on this. Good old 14th /agree and as I stated in the other thread, we're long overdue for a Constitutional Convention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I say in order to vote you simply have to pass a citizenship test every two years or four. The Constitution was written by men who understood this and at the time there were a great deal in this country who could not vote for a reason, they had no reason to be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 The concept that an illegal immigrant can have a child here and that child become a citizen is nonsensical. If my wife and I smuggled ourselves into France, had a child, and we're arrested by French authorities I would expected to be put on a plane at our expense back to the U.S. I would never have the gall to go into another country illegally and expect them to rollover, make me a citizen, make me eligible for their benefits, etc. TYTT takes a different opinion, but I see the use of two citizens of good standing have a child with granted citizenship... But this pthers stuff, nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I say in order to vote you simply have to pass a citizenship test every two years or four. The Constitution was written by men who understood this and at the time there were a great deal in this country who could not vote for a reason, they had no reason to be worth it. What grade level should the test be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 What grade level should the test be? Kindergarten. We want you to have at least a fighting chance. Only those who are net contributors to the national/local treasury should be allowed to vote in those elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Kindergarten. We want you to have at least a fighting chance. Only those who are net contributors to the national/local treasury should be allowed to vote in those elections. So people with disabilities are out?!? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 So people with disabilities are out?!? Wow. People who are asking others to pay their living expenses are out. If you are a lifetime net contributor who is now retired or disabled or whatever I suppose that would be fine. I haven't documented all the fine print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 People who are asking others to pay their living expenses are out. If you are a lifetime net contributor who is now retired or disabled or whatever I suppose that would be fine. I haven't documented all the fine print. OMG! Housewives won't be able to be citizens in your plan! The war on women intensifies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 OMG! Housewives won't be able to be citizens in your plan! The war on women intensifies! The vast majority of housewives file joint tax returns, moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 The vast majority of housewives file joint tax returns, moron. Love it! Now a husband can literally get his wife declared an illegal by simply filing a separate tax return! Genius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Only those who are net contributors to the national/local treasury should be allowed to vote in those elections. Federal fiscal year starts 1 October If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Federal fiscal year starts 1 October If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote. War on the poor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Love it! Now a husband can literally get his wife declared an illegal by simply filing a separate tax return! Genius! "An illegal"?? What are you babbling about you retard? Federal fiscal year starts 1 October If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote. Yup -- wouldn't be very difficult to figure out who should be eligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) Federal fiscal year starts 1 October If somebody has been on SNAP, received section 8, SSDI, or Medicaid in the previous two or more consecutive fiscal years that person should not be eligible to vote. Voting is a right, not a privilege. There are a lot of hardworking Americans who benefit from those programs, because they need help shouldnt surrender their right to vote. Think about the slippery slope you're proposing. Whom else can easily be deemed unworthy, where is the line drawn? Edited August 22, 2015 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Voting is a right, not a privilege. There are a lot of hardworking Americans who benefit from those programs, because they need help shouldnt surrender their right to vote. Think about the slippery slope you're proposing. Whom else can easily be deemed unworthy, where is the line drawn?Voting absolutely is a privilege. Those who have no stake in the size and scope of government should not have a say in how it conducts it's business. Voting yourself someone else's money against their will using the governments guns and simply taking their money at gun point yourself are no different morally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Voting absolutely is a privilege. Those who have no stake in the size and scope of government should not have a say in how it conducts it's business. Voting yourself someone else's money against their will using the governments guns and simply taking their money at gun point yourself are no different morally. The Constitution says voting is a right. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Voting is a right, not a privilege. There are a lot of hardworking Americans who benefit from those programs, because they need help shouldnt surrender their right to vote. Think about the slippery slope you're proposing. Whom else can easily be deemed unworthy, where is the line drawn? It's a lot simpler than you make it out. You have a right to vote. If you want the government to pay your bills you have to voluntarily forfeit the ability to exercise that right during the time in which the government is paying your bills. No one is taking any right away from you; it's a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts