Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?

[Publius1787]

That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.

That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.

I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.

If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!

A straw man is when you set up a fictional argument not proposed by the opposite party for the sole purpose of dismantling an argument that was never proposed. I did nothing of the sort. Now, must I explain what "duly" means as well? How old are you kid?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Publius, your whole series of arguments are based in fiction.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.

That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.

I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.

If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!

A straw man is when you set up a fictional argument not proposed by the opposite party for the sole purpose of dismantling an argument that was never proposed. I did nothing of the sort. Now, must I explain what "duly" means as well? How old are you kid?

This was your strawman;

I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.

It was entirely fictional and I made no such proposal. You posted that strawman BS purely for the devious purpose of attempting to dishonestly discredit my position.

If you cannot admit to your own disingenuousness then there is no reason to waste my time on someone who lacks the basics of honesty and integrity!

Have a nice day.

 

[Publius1787]

That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.
That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.

I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.
If my proposition was baseless then so was the opposite. And yet you ignore the opposite and attack mine. Why? Because you have a bias toward the opposite argument which is equally improvable, though, ignored by you. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Your fallacious strawman is duly noted and ignored!

A straw man is when you set up a fictional argument not proposed by the opposite party for the sole purpose of dismantling an argument that was never proposed. I did nothing of the sort. Now, must I explain what "duly" means as well? How old are you kid?

This was your strawman;

I was unaware that the constitution forbade amendments. I was also unaware that the Constitution considered those who advocate for such an amendment intellectually dishonest. Please point the that clause of the U.S. Constitution that says these things.

It was entirely fictional and I made no such proposal. You posted that strawman BS purely for the devious purpose of attempting to dishonestly discredit my position.
If you cannot admit to your own disingenuousness then there is no reason to waste my time on someone who lacks the basics of honesty and integrity!
Have a nice day.

That is intellectual dishonesty and an indicator of bias. I merely stated a proposition.

Upholding the Constitution is neither intellectually dishonest nor biased.

That you had to resort to such baseless allegations exposes the weakness of your position.

See the above quote. I rest my case.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I rest my case.

By your own admission you never had one to start with.

But ironic that you would use your own despicable canards about me as the basis for "resting".

Thanks for admitting that you do lack any shred of honesty and integrity.

 

[Publius1787]

I rest my case.

By your own admission you never had one to start with.

But ironic that you would use your own despicable canards about me as the basis for "resting".

Thanks for admitting that you do lack any shred of honesty and integrity.

Whatever you need to say to convince yourself you're right man. Good luck with that.

 

[bombsoverMexico]

100% support it.and if there gonna get citizen statis they should deny giving the parents a birth certificate i know theres laws on the books that say you cant reap a benafit from somthing if u broke the law in order to get it but i think the easyiest way to change that law is by not allowing a birth certificate

 

[Dot Com]

Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?

I do because that is not what it was intended for.

 

[bombsoverMexico]

100% support it. there whole reason for having kids in the u.s is an anchor.just that one thing alone cost tax payers minamuim five billion dollars and as high as 20 billion dollars they cost americans thats alot to pay an illegal for having anchor babys.
theres laws on the books that say you cant reap the beneifit of something that u broke the law to get.
americans need to ban togather to stop this look at all the termoil this country is in because of thease people the biggest thing that nobody ever bribgs up is how bad the quality of life is now hay its very taxing on a person every where they go its hispanics and spanish all ur neighbors are gon and replaced with 20 spanish speaking per house and blairing there mexican music so loud u can hear it two blocks away you cant hang out with ur neighbors and barbeque and just have fun i can go on forever about this.but its to stressfull to think about

 

[Politico]

You guys can't even keep a simple yes or no question on topic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?"

What's remarkable is that there are those so consumed with hatred that they'd propose such idiocy.

 

[jwoodie]

Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?

This is ignorant and makes no sense.

The 14th Amendment would first need to be repealed, which would be unmitigated insanity. The 14th Amendment acknowledges the fundamental rights of all persons in the United States, it safeguards those rights from capricious majorities hostile to minority classes of persons, and prohibits politicians and bureaucrats from deciding who is or is not a citizen motivated by purely partisan reasons.

We do not want politicians and bureaucrats deciding who will or will not have his civil liberties.

This is ignorant and makes no sense.

Provisions of a new amendment would supercede a previous amendment.

A Constitutional Amendment would take this decision away from politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[Oldglory1]

"Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?"

What's remarkable is that there are those so consumed with hatred that they'd propose such idiocy.

It has nothing to do with hatred. Why in the world should children born from illegal aliens get birthright citizenship in our country? Now that's true idiocy. That's not what the writer's of the 14th intended. Many countries do not allow that. Are they haters also?

 

[JoeMoma]

"Do you Support a Constitutional Amendment to Forbid Birthright Citizenship to Children of Illegals?"

What's remarkable is that there are those so consumed with hatred that they'd propose such idiocy.

It has nothing to do with hatred. Why in the world should children born from illegal aliens get birthright citizenship in our country? Now that's true idiocy. That's not what the writer's of the 14th intended. Many countries do not allow that. Are they haters also?

I guess we hate all noncitizen children not born in America since we don't give them citizenship.

 

[Unkotare]

Most American's ancestors were born here.

Obviously inaccurate.

 

[Desperado]

If the parents are illegally in the United States the child should not be granted citizenship!
As far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned it can't even define who is a natural born citizen.

 

[Conservative65]

Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.

If parent(s) can't financially support their own kids, the taxpayers have to do it. Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids. Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?

 

[Conservative65]

Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.

That has nothing to do with it. You act like it would be punishment for kids to inherit the citizenship of their parents. Birthright citizenship for kids born to illegal aliens was never meant to bestowed on them by the writers of the 14th Amendment.

The purpose of that portion of the 14th was done for former slaves that had been considered property under Dred Scott and NEVER for the way it's being used now.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.

If parent(s) can't financially support their own kids, the taxpayers have to do it. Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids. Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?

Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.

 

[Conservative65]

Such an 'amendment' would be repugnant to our fundamental tenets of law and justice where children are not subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts.

If parent(s) can't financially support their own kids, the taxpayers have to do it. Being that I'm a taxpayer, any money taken from me is money I can't provide to my kids. Why should my children do with less for the situations of those adults?

Yet another selfish greed obsessed post from someone which zero compassion or empathy for children.

If children aren't supposed to pay for the choices of their parents, why should my children do with less and pay for the choices of some other kid's parents?

It's not greedy to want to keep what I've earned but it is to expect to get a portion of mine if you didn't earn it.