Boy leads protest over deported mother

[Edward]

Well I say deport him also. His mother was not a citizen and so therefore he should not be a citizen. I hate our anchor baby laws and I believe that they will be repealed some day.

So you want the Constitution repealed? This boy has can become the President of the United States under the Constitution, serve as a member of Congress and vote in our elections by virtue of his birth in the United States. It has been a given for centuries that anyone born in a country is a citizen of that country by birth. The origin of their parents have nothing to do with the child's citizenship and never will (even though racists like you would like it to have something to do with it).

Hopefully by Tancredo when he makes office. It is just another way of rewarding illegals.

I am sure Tancredo would love to repeal the Constitution and to violate the rights of others. He like those who agree with him don't give a damn about the rights of others and are nothing more than terrorists who hide behind the ballot to disguise their acts of terrorism against other Americans and even other nations. Once we start losing our citizenship in a nation based on our birth here we lose our right to self-determine. We become nothing more than cattle to be moved around at the whim of evil people like you. Of course you don't agree with those who wrote the Constitution (except when they agree with your evil ass) especially when they said, "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." The Constitution is clear that those who are born inside the jurisdiction have claim to U.S. citizen because they do not necessarily have claim to citizenship in any other nation simply because their parents were born there. They are granted their citizenship based on their country of birth because that is where they were born. They can change that citizenship of their own free will, renounce it and take up citizenship in another nation but this boy will remain a U.S. citizen so long as he chooses to do so because he was born here. He has a claim to the very soil on which he was born contrary to the opinions of racists.

 

[Shogun]

"So you want the Constitution repealed? This boy has can become the President of the United States under the Constitution, serve as a member of Congress and vote in our elections by virtue of his birth in the United States. It has been a given for centuries that anyone born in a country is a citizen of that country by birth. The origin of their parents have nothing to do with the child's citizenship and never will (even though racists like you would like it to have something to do with it)."


centuries, eh?

did you want to think about that again before I bitch slap you with American history?

REPEAL THE CONSTITUTION? wow.

WOW

are you even aware that the constitution has been changed and altered by things called AMENDMENTS without having to *GASP* repeal the whole fucking document?




hehehe.. centuries.. it's a uniform reality accross nations since the Rome accord of 678 ad!

 

[hjmick]

"So you want the Constitution repealed? This boy has can become the President of the United States under the Constitution, serve as a member of Congress and vote in our elections by virtue of his birth in the United States. It has been a given for centuries that anyone born in a country is a citizen of that country by birth. The origin of their parents have nothing to do with the child's citizenship and never will (even though racists like you would like it to have something to do with it)."


centuries, eh?

did you want to think about that again before I bitch slap you with American history?

REPEAL THE CONSTITUTION? wow.

WOW

are you even aware that the constitution has been changed and altered by things called AMENDMENTS without having to *GASP* repeal the whole fucking document?




hehehe.. centuries.. it's a uniform reality accross nations since the Rome accord of 678 ad!

In fact, the law that makes children born in the U.S. is an Amendment. Prior to 1868 no such law existed. It was intended to secure rights for former slaves.

The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to read that children born on U.S. soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee does not exist in most of Europe or Asia, though it is part of English law.

 

[Edward]

Jr high let out early today, skippy?

If you think her post was a valid observation of the motives behind those concerned with illegal immigration then it really is no wonder why you have your ass handed to you in damn near every thread you post in.

First, I do not have my ass handed to me in damn near every thread but you sure as hell do. Let me break it down for your retarded ass. This is less a concern of immigration or immigration reform because Congress has the right to set a uniform naturalization law and more the motive behind those who are advocating for stronger laws that go beyond "naturalization" to barring people from entering the United States when they have not committed any crime, and do not pose a health or security risk. It was always a given that people should have the right to choose where they live. Now, the world is in such a state that the majority of the people who are now living do not have the freedom to move from their country of birth to a place more suitable for them including American citizens. I suggest you try to "renounce your citizenship in the United States and take it up in another country and see how difficult it is." I have never argued that we should not have a strong naturalization process and that people have to abide by it but I do argue against the philosophy that "to be in the U.S. you need to be a citizen or need to have permission to be here." This is where I will always draw the line and those who go beyond this are simply racists.

indeed.. it's just a fear of brown people!

Indeed it is and that is why we had the Chinese Exclusion Acts and other such acts in the past. Looking at our history it can be safely concluded that the majority of immigration laws that bar people from entering the United States are motivated by racism or a fear of those who are different. I do have a problem with people trying to disguise their racist motivation behind a law because these laws are by virtue racist.

of COURSE it's blatant racism to want to reserve the right to determine who can and who cannot enter our country! I mean, Texas is like our own little fucking lynch mob!

I guess it wasn't racist when you fuckers determined who can and cannot enter the United States and decided that those "Chinese" would be banned from entering (they also gave the same arguments you now give to support your position which is not a coincidence). Indeed, I recognize the motive behind these types of laws and because I know our history I can hear the same "law and order" shit that was used to support the Chinese Exclusion Act and other such acts being used now in this debate but like than those words are only used to disguise the real racism (i.e., wanting to deport a natural born citizen because his mother wasn't a citizen of the United States at the time he was born).

Those who wrote the Constitution took it upon themselves to extend citizenship to children of American citizens who were not born in the United States. In other words it was accepted that those who are not born here, even if their parents are citizens were not by virtue citizens by birth but those born here are considered citizens by birth. This has been the law of nations for centuries and will remain as such regardless of what you and all those who hide your racism behind the "right to make laws" believe. Yes, even racists like you can pass racists laws and then claim that those who break those laws are criminals. Indeed, those shit heads who supported segregation were racists and those who broke those fucking laws were by virtue criminals in the legal sense but in the fundamental sense it was those who made those laws who were behaving unlawfully. Rosa Parks was by virtue a criminal who was breaking the law but she is as right for doing so as those who resist racist immigration laws are right for doing so. I commend this woman for disobeying racist laws passed by racists like you just like I commend Rosa Parks and others for disobeying racists laws passed by racists.

not that you could name a single other modern nation who gives up that same right to filter who comes into their country...

Nor have I tried but you are again trying to twist things so you don't have to appear racist (hurry tell us its about the law just like the racists did over the last two hundred years). What other nations do or don't do have no bearing on what we do or don't do but of course when you are backed into a corner and are forced to choose between admitting that you are a racist and finding something to rationalize your racism you will always choose to justify and rationalize. This is why you need to bring other nations into the picture even though many of them have as many problems (if not more) than we do. If I lived in those countries I would be addressing any "racist" or "immoral" policy they may have but I do not which brings us back again to the fact that there is no support for these kinds of laws even though racists like you enacted them. We only have to look at our history and at the racists who supported what were obvious racist laws and their arguments (the same argument you are now giving to support those laws you agree with) to see you for what you really are.

I get lots of rep for the pic in my signature, by the way.. It's a popular opinion, it seems.

Big fucking deal asshole. Your opinion of me means nothing. I am not seeking your God damn vote or your God damn support. Now let me break it down for your racist ass: I don't give a shit what a piece of shit like you thinks of me because I think even worse of your ass and and the assholes who you vote for. It was also a popular opinion that segregation was a good thing but that didn't make it right so I am not going to base what is right and moral on the opinions of pieces of shit like you. You can protest all you want and go find someone who will talk out of their asses and ask you "will you please vote for me because I will tell you how right you are, how good you are, and how intelligent you are.

 

[Shogun]

I tellya.. nothing says "I don't have my ass handed to me, YOU DO!" quite like another board member posting the REALITY of American history in clarification.

Here... you dropped this:

Maybe you can rant for a couple paragraphs that no one will read if it makes you feel less stupid...


CENTURIES!

 

[Shogun]

It was always a given that people should have the right to choose where they live.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

oh man... this would be the funniest thing ive seen all day if it werent so sad..


Indeed, the trail of fucking tears certainly does validate your stupidity.


go play kickball, kiddo.. enjoy your childhood while you can.

 

[Shogun]

Those who wrote the Constitution took it upon themselves to extend citizenship to children of American citizens who were not born in the United States. In other words it was accepted that those who are not born here, even if their parents are citizens were not by virtue citizens by birth but those born here are considered citizens by birth.

yea.. you know.. as long as they were white and from europe! Inideed, what a finger you have on the pulse of American History! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Shogun]

You know how your family motto is "if you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bullshit"?


I advise you to discover a new family motto because that one isn't working for ya, kiddo!


and THAT, sir, is what havinf your ass handed to you looks like.

 

[Edward]

In fact, the law that makes children birn in the U.S. is an Amendment. Prior to 1868 no such law existed. It was intended to secure rights for former slaves.

The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to read that children born on U.S. soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee does not exist in most of Europe or Asia, though it is part of English law.

Let me break it down for you. First, Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitutions states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." This provision of the Constitution was added to clarify that all persons born in the United States be considered "natural born citizens" for purposes of being the President and Vice President of the United States or in other words they accepted what was considered the law of nations up to this point. But, to even be more clear the 14th Amendment states, "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." Again, this is a constitutional issue and not a legal issue. Your narrow understanding of the law and our history doesn't hold much weight. You can cite something that you think agrees with you but in doing so you ignore the actual facts that contradict what you are saying. Prior to the 14th Amendment it was a given that those born in the United States were citizens of the United States or in other words "they were natural born citizens." This didn't hold true of children of U.S. citizens who were born outside of the United States (in other words if your mother and father were U.S. citizens and you were born outside of the United States you would not have been considered a citizen before 1790). It was understood that anyone who was born in the United States was a "natural born citizen" but that those who were born outside of the United States were not considered natural born citizen and Congress had to address those children of Americans who were born outside of the country so they did so. Your ignorance of history, the law and the Constitution is becoming more and more obvious the more you post. I suggest you take a deep breath and step back from the computer because you are demonstrating that you are a retard.

 

[Shogun]

yea dude.. because BLACKS AND NATIVES were in the running for becoming the President.


damn, son. You are one dumb lil bastard, arentya?


I guess it didn't dawn on you that the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT pretty much implies that such was not the case originally.... which allowed slavery and 4/5th status to blacks... Certainly a far cry from CENTURIES. but who wants to worry about details when lil eddie drank TWO kool-aid juice boxes and is amped up on a sugar rush?

 

[Edward]

It was always a given that people should have the right to choose where they live.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

oh man... this would be the funniest thing ive seen all day if it werent so sad..


Indeed, the trail of fucking tears certainly does validate your stupidity.


go play kickball, kiddo.. enjoy your childhood while you can.

Now you are referring to something you learned in a High School history class and which you know nothing about. I doubt you even know what the Trail of Tears was, who was involved, and its historical significance. Your lack of knowledge of history is shocking but I doubt that you think so. That you would make such a general reference to history without it having a bearing on what I said only indicates that you an egocentric asshole who has no grasp of our history as a country. It is obvious you don't understand that rationale that was used for the mass removal of Native Americans from their lands to reservations. You fail to understand the historical significance of this incident and I doubt you even know what the series of events was that led up to this specific event because your knowledge is that of someone who took history in High School but that is where your knowledge ends.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Originally Posted by Shogun
damn, son. You are one dumb lil bastard, arentya?


I guess it didn't dawn on you that the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT pretty much implies that such was not the case originally.... which allowed slavery and 4/5th status to blacks... Certainly a far cry from CENTURIES. but who wants to worry about details when lil eddie drank TWO kool-aid juice boxes and is amped up on a sugar rush?

Um...yeah that would be the 3/5th clause, not 4/5th so I have to agree that your constitutional knowledge is weak at best. Also, the 14th Amendment was ratified in the 1860s so that is at least a century old since anyone born in the United States had access to citizenship rights. Without getting all silly, how can you respond to the point which you have yet to respond to. Do you see an Amendment passing that would repeal the portion of the constitution that awards citizenship rights by birth. What would you replace it with. How would citizenship be determined? It's an extremely slippery slope. Care to respond?

 

[Shogun]

*yawn*

you see, it's just not impressive when you assume to know me.. ESPECIALLY when your little CENTURIES bubble has been burst. Yea yea.. we can both sling around a few ad hominems but without WIT and KNOWLEDGE they just become your standard EDWARD reaction to having your ass handed to you. It's like a knitting pattern.. repeat until your lil hands get tired.


ps.. I bet ONE piece of historic relevance is that it totally debunks your dumb fucking "everyone gets to choose where they want to live because the original founders were all into that equality shit" opinion...


but hey.. why read when you can bluster?

 

[jillian]

Um...yeah that would be the 3/5th clause, not 4/5th so I have to agree that your constitutional knowledge is weak at best. Also, the 14th Amendment was ratified in the 1860s so that is at least a century old since anyone born in the United States had access to citizenship rights. Without getting all silly, how can you respond to the point which you have yet to respond to. Do you see an Amendment passing that would repeal the portion of the constitution that awards citizenship rights by birth. What would you replace it with. How would citizenship be determined? It's an extremely slippery slope. Care to respond?

See, that's the thing, other than by birth on our soil, birth to citizens and naturalization, the only way to confer citizenship would be by blood... and we know how well that worked for Germany.

 

[hjmick]

Let me break it down for you. First, Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitutions states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." This provision of the Constitution was added to clarify that all persons born in the United States be considered "natural born citizens" for purposes of being the President and Vice President of the United States or in other words they accepted what was considered the law of nations up to this point. But, to even be more clear the 14th Amendment states, "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." Again, this is a constitutional issue and not a legal issue. Your narrow understanding of the law and our history doesn't hold much weight. You can cite something that you think agrees with you but in doing so you ignore the actual facts that contradict what you are saying. Prior to the 14th Amendment it was a given that those born in the United States were citizens of the United States or in other words "they were natural born citizens." This didn't hold true of children of U.S. citizens who were born outside of the United States (in other words if your mother and father were U.S. citizens and you were born outside of the United States you would not have been considered a citizen before 1790). It was understood that anyone who was born in the United States was a "natural born citizen" but that those who were born outside of the United States were not considered natural born citizen and Congress had to address those children of Americans who were born outside of the country so they did so. Your ignorance of history, the law and the Constitution is becoming more and more obvious the more you post.

You need not concern yourself with my grasp on history, it's just fine

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. It did this by prohibiting states from denying or abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, depriving any person of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Almost all the Southern states refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, Radical Republicans such as Charles Sumner, Thaddeus Stevens, Benjamin Butler, Benjamin Wade and Henry Winter Davies urged the passing of further legislation to force these measures on the former Confederacy. The result was the 1867 Reconstruction Acts that divided the South into five military districts controlled by martial law, proclaimed universal suffrage for all men and required the new state constitutions to be drawn up.

I suggest you take a deep breath and step back from the computer because you are demonstrating that you are a retard.

And I suggest you worry about yourself. When you resort to insults and name calling, you lose the debate as well as any credibility you may have had.

"Insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong." - Jacques Rousseau

 

[Shogun]

Um...yeah that would be the 3/5th clause, not 4/5th so I have to agree that your constitutional knowledge is weak at best. Also, the 14th Amendment was ratified in the 1860s so that is at least a century old since anyone born in the United States had access to citizenship rights. Without getting all silly, how can you respond to the point which you have yet to respond to. Do you see an Amendment passing that would repeal the portion of the constitution that awards citizenship rights by birth. What would you replace it with. How would citizenship be determined? It's an extremely slippery slope. Care to respond?

indeed, it's probably that 1/5th that I was off that made edwards assertions about who was originally counted as a citizen true. Way to SCORE, buddy! Your lacey glove sure has smitten my rosey cheak, sir!


Would you like to admit that the 14th amendment, which hardly scratched the surface of black citizenship status for a good 100 years, was certainly not a panicea solution and makes laughable lil eddie's assertions about CENTURIES of citizenship status? Maybe you can clarify how many blacks, natives and women were in the running for the office of President circa 1801? I sure do hope that fudging 1/5th of the black mans status doesn't keep you admitting as much.. You know, since THAT seems to be what determines ones strength in knowledge on the Constitution.. HAHA!

I would answer you by reminding you that the 14th Amendment was the direct result of a pressing issue at THAT time and, likewise, since our Constitution is maleable enough to allow additions and retractions so, too, would an updated Amendment have to directly address OUR pressing issue of illegal immigration. The simple answer is to restrict citizenship status to those kids born in the US whose parents were here LEGALLY. simple. YOU may think that such restrictions are draconian but I'd bet that you think the same about a closed border so.. don't put that lacey glove away just yet! I've always thought that Heinlein's commentary, in the book starship troopers, on national citizenship was interesting to consider. Especially for a pluralistic society where we seem to value difference moreso than similarity. I hate to break it to you but no other country on the planet is trying to be the worlds Cure All Elixer and neither should we pretend that ignoring illegals in the US has no detrimental realities tacked along with it.

You do remember that the people who were the reason for the 14th amendment didn't have quite the same choice about being here than, say, the last illegal alien that tried to use a fake Social Security card to get employment while totally stealing someones identity, right?




was I 1/5th off this time? You know.. It's the fine details like that that REALLY make or break a debate and conveys personal understanding of an issue!

 

[doniston]

indeed, it's probably that 1/5th that I was off that made edwards assertions about who was originally counted as a citizen true. Way to SCORE, buddy! Your lacey glove sure has smitten my rosey cheak, sir!


Would you like to admit that the 14th amendment, which hardly scratched the surface of black citizenship status for a good 100 years, was certainly not a panicea solution and makes laughable lil eddie's assertions about CENTURIES of citizenship status? Maybe you can clarify how many blacks, natives and women were in the running for the office of President circa 1801? I sure do hope that fudging 1/5th of the black mans status doesn't keep you admitting as much.. You know, since THAT seems to be what determines ones strength in knowledge on the Constitution.. HAHA!

I would answer you by reminding you that the 14th Amendment was the direct result of a pressing issue at THAT time and, likewise, since our Constitution is maleable enough to allow additions and retractions so, too, would an updated Amendment have to directly address OUR pressing issue of illegal immigration. The simple answer is to restrict citizenship status to those kids born in the US whose parents were here LEGALLY. simple. YOU may think that such restrictions are draconian but I'd bet that you think the same about a closed border so.. don't put that lacey glove away just yet! I've always thought that Heinlein's commentary, in the book starship troopers, on national citizenship was interesting to consider. Especially for a pluralistic society where we seem to value difference moreso than similarity. I hate to break it to you but no other country on the planet is trying to be the worlds Cure All Elixer and neither should we pretend that ignoring illegals in the US has no detrimental realities tacked along with it.

You do remember that the people who were the reason for the 14th amendment didn't have quite the same choice about being here than, say, the last illegal alien that tried to use a fake Social Security card to get employment while totally stealing someones identity, right?




was I 1/5th off this time? You know.. It's the fine details like that that REALLY make or break a debate and conveys personal understanding of an issue!

The problem is that instead of strict adherance to the constitutuion law, (which provides those rights to the newborn,) the Government has philosophically ammended it to give anchor rights to the parents, and the family. the constitution provided no such rights to the family members.

 

[jillian]

The constitution sets forth minimal rights... not maximum. "Strict construction" wouldn't apply, even if it weren't a crock.

 

[Shogun]

Can I get someone from the left admit that concern about illegals isn't a just a telltale sign of racism?

I swear.. This must be how Lincoln Chafey felt in 04.

 

[Shogun]

The problem is that instead of strict adherance to the constitutuion law, (which provides those rights to the newborn,) the Government has philosophically ammended it to give anchor rights to the parents, and the family. the constitution provided no such rights to the family members.

well, im glad you didnt get stuck on the 1/5th fine print.

I have no problem clarifying the 14th amendment, or creating another, in order to address the current illegal immigrant situation. Hell, let's do the same to the ninth while we are at it!