Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 What, none of you right wingers want to drug test voters? You smoka the pot, you no vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House 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. Â 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. Â 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. I agree. The constitution does not in any way confer citizenship on the child of an illegal immigrant born on US soil. A straight reading of the amendment makes that clear. What, none of you right wingers want to drug test voters? You smoka the pot, you no vote You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I agree. The constitution does not in any way confer citizenship on the child of an illegal immigrant born on US soil. A straight reading of the amendment makes that clear. Â You're an idiot. At least I can read! I mean, what part of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside" don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 At least I can read! I mean, what part of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside" don't you understand? I'm pretty clear on it, thanks. I imagine the part that !@#$s you up is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But like I said before, you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I'm pretty clear on it, thanks. I imagine the part that !@#$s you up is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But like I said before, you're an idiot. Â What's your point about jurisdiction, would love to hear this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 What's your point about jurisdiction, would love to hear this. Â I'm sure yours would be more entertaining. Please, do share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I'm sure yours would be more entertaining. Please, do share. Â You imagined right, that part :;(&$; me up. Does it change the fact a person born here is a citizen? Obviously the people interpreting it now do not think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 At least I can read! I mean, what part of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside" don't you understand? Â What part of A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Â Says I can't own an M14? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Â What part of A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Â Says I can't own an M14? Weapons have changed a lot since the 1790's. But people being born is pretty much the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 You imagined right, that part :;(&$; me up. Does it change the fact a person born here is a citizen? Obviously the people interpreting it now do not think so. Â Wrong again. The matter is within the discretion of Congress, not a constitutional mandate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Â Wrong again. The matter is within the discretion of Congress, not a constitutional mandate. What discretion does Congress have on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I'm pretty clear on it, thanks. I imagine the part that !@#$s you up is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But like I said before, you're an idiot. Â No, the part that !@#$s him up is that people are talking about changing it. Â Because the Constitution is a living document (but not that part, apparently.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 The Constitution says voting is a right. Ha!Rights don't come from government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 What discretion does Congress have on the matter? your mom needs to take the lock off the parent filter so you can go do something else on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Krauthammers take on this issue among other things. Â http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422864/donald-trump-deportation-republicans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Krauthammers take on this issue among other things. Â http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422864/donald-trump-deportation-republicans His constitutional analysis is wrong, but otherwise I think it's a pretty sensible piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 His constitutional analysis is wrong, Â How do you figure? Â From everything I've read, the entire argument for the 14th not supporting birthright citizenship centers around what, exactly, "jurisdiction" means. Krauthammer's analysis seems to reflect that. What's more, his analysis is self-consistent overall: if mass deportation is going to cost half a trillion dollars because of due process, that's a de facto admission of jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. Â You may not agree with his analysis (and that's fine), but I'm curious where it's factually wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Â How do you figure? Â From everything I've read, the entire argument for the 14th not supporting birthright citizenship centers around what, exactly, "jurisdiction" means. Krauthammer's analysis seems to reflect that. What's more, his analysis is self-consistent overall: if mass deportation is going to cost half a trillion dollars because of due process, that's a de facto admission of jurisdiction over illegal immigrants. Â You may not agree with his analysis (and that's fine), but I'm curious where it's factually wrong? He states as a matter of fact that the 14th grants birthright citizenship for the children of illegals, which is incorrect. The link 3rd put in the OP actually does a pretty good job of explaining some of the legislative history that informs the issue, but aside from that the wording itself is in conflict with Krauthammer's interpretation. The relevant portion of the amendment reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." Â It's relevant that is says AND rather than OR because it shows that they are two distinct conditions, both of which must be met, before citizenship is conferred. If mere presence on US soil were sufficient to establish jurisdiction then it would be unnecessarily cumulative to include the language about jurisdiction. There is a presumption that such language is not superfluous. Plus, "jurisdiction" in this context refers to control; the kind of control a government has over its citizens and resident aliens. The government does not exercise that control over people who are undocumented and within the country illegally. It can't. Ostensibly, it doesn't even have records or knowledge of their existence. Â Like I said, the rest of the article is pretty sensible, but on this issue he's off the mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 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. As a libertarian, you of all people should stand up against people advocating voting upon condition... Once you begin to suspend rights based on economics metrics, what other rights enumerated to free people begin to come under attack? Becuase people dont vote how you prefer, doesnt mean they should be relegate to no vote, no voice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Weapons have changed a lot since the 1790's. So has American citizenship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts