Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges

[gautama]

And I care because . . . ? You seem to be mistakenly thinking this is some sort of one-upsmanship thing here, where I'm dying to hear your personal details. I'm really, REALLY not. You asked about my naturalization papers. I said I don't have any. You wandered off onto smucking Obama, as though I give a shit. I brought it back to you asking about papers I have no reason to have. Now you're telling me about your frigging family history, as though I give a shit. Try to stay on-topic.

Ah yes, you can mention the civil war, but I can't mention the revolutionary war....can you say "hypocrite"?

You made it sound as if you have a right to citizenship because your family has been here since the civil war. Well, my family has been here since the revolutionary war and I still had to be naturalized.

If you're QUITE finished hunting for things to be butt-chapped about . . .

I never said, or even implied, that I have a "right to citizenship" based on longevity. I was pretty clear - except in the case of someone who's looking for a reason to be offended and insulted - that my citizenship derives not just from having been born in this country (which I was), but ALSO from the fact that I descended from people who became citizens through legal channels. They merely happened to have done so somewhere between the Revolution and the War of Northern Aggression.

That "also" is what's important here, not an entirely unsolicited rant on how YOUR family has been here XYZ, like I give a damn. You weren't born in the US, and had the bad luck to be born at a time when the interpretation of the laws in that regard were ambiguous, and so your citizenship status required further clarification. Life sucks, but you might want to get over being so hyper-defensive about it.

And now we're done here, because I've already wasted a lot more time on this than it was worth.

Cecilie,

I want to congratulate you regarding the excellent job you've done with the Liberrhoidal morons regarding the anchor baby issue.

Your patience in annihilating ALL the idiotic blathering of the nincompoops is nothing short of mindboggling. I am ashamed to say that these mentally retarded blobs of protoplasm usually overwhelm me with their deluge of nonsense and might leave the impression of winning arguments simply because I can't stand their crap and give them the last word.

Thank you for your support and patience in dealing with the Liberrhoidal fools.

 

[JakeStarkey]

hmmm, I wander what Gautama is saying: "niggle wiggle snork bigrath mumble mumble wiggle snort" What does that mean.

 

[Father Time]

I love that inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

"Come on in, sneak in our country, plop out a kid or two and we'll instantly make you all citizens and support you for life"

Heartwarming....

Well it certainly isn't anti-immigration

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

 

[Father Time]

"But the federal courts have never specifically addressed the question of whether children born to those in the country illegally should be entitled to citizenship, says Michael M. Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration and has advised the state legislators on their efforts.

Berman says the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify the status of freedmen and "does not apply to foreigners. The 14th Amendment, which is being used to provide citizenship, is the last thing that should be used."

Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges : NPR

Should you be able to keep the loot you got from robbing a bank? Then why should illegals reap benefits from breaking the law.

This is about the children of people who break the law.

Should children suffer from the sins of the parents?

 

[Father Time]

Cecilie as usual misses common points.

1) The civil war is properly known as the War of Southern Aggression.

Yeah but don't let facts get in the way of right wing revisionism.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I love that inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

"Come on in, sneak in our country, plop out a kid or two and we'll instantly make you all citizens and support you for life"

Heartwarming....

Well it certainly isn't anti-immigration

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Who is complaining about immigrants?? It's the ILLEGAL immigrants and their 'anchor babies' that people are opposed to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ah yes, you can mention the civil war, but I can't mention the revolutionary war....can you say "hypocrite"?

You made it sound as if you have a right to citizenship because your family has been here since the civil war. Well, my family has been here since the revolutionary war and I still had to be naturalized.

If you're QUITE finished hunting for things to be butt-chapped about . . .

I never said, or even implied, that I have a "right to citizenship" based on longevity. I was pretty clear - except in the case of someone who's looking for a reason to be offended and insulted - that my citizenship derives not just from having been born in this country (which I was), but ALSO from the fact that I descended from people who became citizens through legal channels. They merely happened to have done so somewhere between the Revolution and the War of Northern Aggression.

That "also" is what's important here, not an entirely unsolicited rant on how YOUR family has been here XYZ, like I give a damn. You weren't born in the US, and had the bad luck to be born at a time when the interpretation of the laws in that regard were ambiguous, and so your citizenship status required further clarification. Life sucks, but you might want to get over being so hyper-defensive about it.

And now we're done here, because I've already wasted a lot more time on this than it was worth.

Cecilie,

I want to congratulate you regarding the excellent job you've done with the Liberrhoidal morons regarding the anchor baby issue.

Your patience in annihilating ALL the idiotic blathering of the nincompoops is noting short of mindboggling. I am ashamed to say that these mentally retarded blobs of protoplasm usually overwhelm me with their deluge of nonsense and might leave the impression of winning arguments simply because I can't stand their crap and give them the last word.

Thank you for your support and patience in dealing with the Liberrhoidal fools.

My pleasure, and thank you very much for your kind words.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I love that inscription on the Statue of Liberty:

"Come on in, sneak in our country, plop out a kid or two and we'll instantly make you all citizens and support you for life"

Heartwarming....

Well it certainly isn't anti-immigration

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Who is complaining about immigrants?? It's the ILLEGAL immigrants and their 'anchor babies' that people are opposed to.

I think I actually pointed out on one thread or another that the sources the leftist in question was using was deliberately confusing and conflating legal and illegal immigrants in order to try to downplay the importance of the issue.

 

[Againsheila]

Cecilie as usual misses common points.

1) The civil war is properly known as the War of Southern Aggression.

2) The SCOTUS
a. is not going to overturn the 14th, and it will not allow Congress to do it.
b. if it did overturn the 14th will still grandather every child born in the states before the date of the rulling.

I am tired of folks who are talking about matters about which they know nothing.

It's not a matter of overruling the 14 Amendment...it's a matter of deciding on the interpretation of the Amendment. Again, they changed the interpretation in the 1970's. Why? How can you suddenly change an interpretation of an Amendment to the constitution?

I am willing to standby whatever the supreme court decides, as long as they decide something.

 

[Father Time]

Cecilie as usual misses common points.

1) The civil war is properly known as the War of Southern Aggression.

2) The SCOTUS
a. is not going to overturn the 14th, and it will not allow Congress to do it.
b. if it did overturn the 14th will still grandather every child born in the states before the date of the rulling.

I am tired of folks who are talking about matters about which they know nothing.

It's not a matter of overruling the 14 Amendment...it's a matter of deciding on the interpretation of the Amendment. Again, they changed the interpretation in the 1970's. Why? How can you suddenly change an interpretation of an Amendment to the constitution?

I am willing to standby whatever the supreme court decides, as long as they decide something.

It is.

The very first sentence of the 14th amendment reads

"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.".

So basically if they want to change the birth=citizenship status they'd have to pass another Constitutional Amendment. That or they'd have to get at least 5 justices to ignore the 14th.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cecilie as usual misses common points.

1) The civil war is properly known as the War of Southern Aggression.

2) The SCOTUS
a. is not going to overturn the 14th, and it will not allow Congress to do it.
b. if it did overturn the 14th will still grandather every child born in the states before the date of the rulling.

I am tired of folks who are talking about matters about which they know nothing.

It's not a matter of overruling the 14 Amendment...it's a matter of deciding on the interpretation of the Amendment. Again, they changed the interpretation in the 1970's. Why? How can you suddenly change an interpretation of an Amendment to the constitution?

I am willing to standby whatever the supreme court decides, as long as they decide something.

You change the interpretation of an Amendment by deciding that you are MUCH smarter and wiser than your predecessors - not to mention much more compassionate - and therefore need to correct their mistakes. On occasion, they're actually even right about this. After all, the Supreme Court ALSO reversed the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that said "separate but equal" was perfectly okay.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, SCOTUS did change the interpretation of "separate but equal." But it will not change the 14th to your liking, and a constitutional amendment will never be ratified. The Hispanic vote alone now outweighs the far-right reactionary vote, and Americans generally favor expansionism rather than contractionism of the Constitution.

If Gautama is in an poster's corner, then the kiss of death has been given to that poster's opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, SCOTUS did change the interpretation of "separate but equal." But it will not change the 14th to your liking, and a constitutional amendment will never be ratified. The Hispanic vote alone now outweighs the far-right reactionary vote, and Americans generally favor expansionism rather than contractionism of the Constitution.

If Gautama is in an poster's corner, then the kiss of death has been given to that poster's opinion.

Fortunately, I'm not a leftist, so I never look to the Supreme Court to make law to suit me. I fully expect the people to get so fed up with illegal immigration that an amendment to rule out "anchor babies" is undertaken. I also fully expect it to be ratified, because unlike some people, I am not so racist as to believe that Hispanics are unable to see past skin color. I give them credit for being able to understand right and wrong just like everyone else does.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Won't happen. Folks who feel like you are a very small minority. But that's OK, because informed opinion in discussion helps a democratic society make informed decisions.

 

[gautama]

Yes, SCOTUS did change the interpretation of "separate but equal." But it will not change the 14th to your liking, and a constitutional amendment will never be ratified. The Hispanic vote alone now outweighs the far-right reactionary vote, and Americans generally favor expansionism rather than contractionism of the Constitution.

If Gautama is in an poster's corner, then the kiss of death has been given to that poster's opinion.

Starkey is synonymous with malarkey.

This Obamarrhoidal idiot digs his own grave.

The mentally defective moron even attempts to change the meaning of English words. He, and his ilk, want to replace the word "ILLEGAL" as in "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" with blather.

 

[Father Time]

Yes, SCOTUS did change the interpretation of "separate but equal." But it will not change the 14th to your liking, and a constitutional amendment will never be ratified. The Hispanic vote alone now outweighs the far-right reactionary vote, and Americans generally favor expansionism rather than contractionism of the Constitution.

If Gautama is in an poster's corner, then the kiss of death has been given to that poster's opinion.

Starkey is synonymous with malarkey.

This Obamarrhoidal idiot digs his own grave.

The mentally defective moron even attempts to change the meaning of English words. He, and his ilk, want to replace the word "ILLEGAL" as in "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" with blather.

Look if you have nothing to add but insults then please don't bother posting.

 

[gautama]

Yes, SCOTUS did change the interpretation of "separate but equal." But it will not change the 14th to your liking, and a constitutional amendment will never be ratified. The Hispanic vote alone now outweighs the far-right reactionary vote, and Americans generally favor expansionism rather than contractionism of the Constitution.

If Gautama is in an poster's corner, then the kiss of death has been given to that poster's opinion.

Starkey is synonymous with malarkey.

This Obamarrhoidal idiot digs his own grave.

The mentally defective moron even attempts to change the meaning of English words. He, and his ilk, want to replace the word "ILLEGAL" as in "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" with blather.

Look if you have nothing to add but insults then please don't bother posting.

Sonny,

Apparently, my POINT, intermixed with an accurate observation of the intelligence of Starkey Malarkey, and Liberrhoidal nincompoops like you, still eludes you: You Obamarrhoidal lemmings desperately try to replace an English word "ILLEGAL" as in "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" with blather. GEDDIT ?

If fools like you don't comprehend simple concepts, then this will be my last attempt....on this topic anyway.

 

[Father Time]

You didn't have a point all you had was insults.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gautma is simply a loon troll. End of story.

 

[keee keee]

How can somebody that has never been to any country but the U.S.A. be considered a foreigner? What are the rules in this regard?

A baby of and Illegal alien is an illegal alien also. Send both parent and child back to the parents country of origin!!!! No citizenship period!!!! this law was made for children of slaves!!!!
Here is an analogy. If some pregnant women breaks into your house and in the process of this crime has her baby in your house does this baby then become a member of your family? What is the differance when this person breaks into my country and does the same thing? Time to end anchor babies and send all these criminals back to their own countries!!!!