A Short Primer on the Citizenship Clause in the 14th Amendment

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Then I guess you all need to stop your anti gun positions

I don't have any anti-gun positions. What are you blathering about?

 

[my2¢]

Even if Trump does win the Supreme Court case, birthright citizenship will still be the law of the land. From what I can tell the issue is whether a federal judge's ruling is applicable nationwide. Real Republicans are for tort reform and against frivolous lawsuits. Trump and fellow crybaby from this state, Kari Lake, are simply sore losers.

I think the Supreme Court will obviously side with the judicial branch on this one.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I don't have any anti-gun positions. What are you blathering about?

I said "you all" as in leftys in general.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I said "you all" as in leftys in general.

I am not a lefty in any way, shape or form. Just FYI.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So fun to watch the Admiral school Seaman Excalibur.

Possibly because YOU WILL NEVER be able to.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I said "you all" as in leftys in general.

He's not a lefty.

Good grief people on this board don't pay attention.

 

[HikerGuy83]

None at all not implemented individually through due process.

So much hypocrisy. Its wrong for judges to "interpret" something not there until you want them to interpret something not there.

I am not sure you talking about interpreting as much as you are talking about applying the law in circumstances not spelled out. The law itself may be very clear, but the application in specific situations may be dark and cloudy.

 

[HikerGuy83]

When you guys are done arguing this, will the SCOTUS call the winners for some tips on how to rule ?

 

[pknopp]

I am not sure you talking about interpreting as much as you are talking about applying the law in circumstances not spelled out. The law itself may be very clear, but the application in specific situations may be dark and cloudy.

Which means the law doesn't cover it.

 

[SweetTea]

I addressed the first part in my comment which you obviously did not read. I said, "It is a long term after effect." The mother doesn't become a citizen.

As for automatic weapons, you can have them legally. You just have to jump through hoops. Didn't you know that?

Right and the left is going nuts now when we attempt to deport the mom making the specious argument that we are deporting US citizens. She brings her citizen baby with her most of the time, but what if she didn’t? Who would take care of them? Why should we be on the hook for healthcare(Medicaid). We all pay for that. It makes no sense to allow people to come in to have citizen babies. It isn’t good for our country.

As for automatic weapons, you can only have fully automatic weapons manufactured before 1986, after jumping through hoops. But, to make my point, what about people who have felonies who aren’t allowed to own guns? What part of the 2nd Amendment mentions that? Right, it doesn’t, in fact it states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People means everybody, right? Citizen, non-citizen, criminal, non-criminal, everybody. What did we do? We passed a law in 1968 putting restrictions on this right because we recognized that these were not issues that were faced back in the late 1700’s when this amendment was passed. I supposed Republicans could pass a law banning birthright citizenship, essentially re-interpreting the 2nd Amendment if that makes you feel any better.

 

[pknopp]

Right and the left is going nuts now when we attempt to deport the mom making the specious argument that we are deporting US citizens. She brings her citizen baby with her most of the time, but what if she didn’t? Who would take care of them? Why should we be on the hook for healthcare(Medicaid). We all pay for that. It makes no sense to allow people to come in to have citizen babies. It isn’t good for our country.

As for automatic weapons, you can only have fully automatic weapons manufactured before 1986, after jumping through hoops. But, to make my point, what about people who have felonies who aren’t allowed to own guns? What part of the 2nd Amendment mentions that? Right, it doesn’t, in fact it states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People means everybody, right? Citizen, non-citizen, criminal, non-criminal, everybody. What did we do? We passed a law in 1968 putting restrictions on this right because we recognized that these were not issues that were faced back in the late 1700’s when this amendment was passed. I supposed Republicans could pass a law banning birthright citizenship, essentially re-interpreting the 2nd Amendment if that makes you feel any better.

The second amendment doesn't mention it. The rest of the Constitution does or you wouldn't be able to arrest people at all. It didnt start in 1968. The Constitution clearly lays out the removal of rights through due process.

 

[SweetTea]

The second amendment doesn't mention it. The rest of the Constitution does or you wouldn't be able to arrest people at all. It didnt start in 1968. The Constitution clearly lays out the removal of rights through due process.

Neat, and one of the rights that should be removed would be for those who have broken the law by entering our country illegally should not be able to have children that are citizens. If they are illegal, they lose that right. This would not account for those traveling into the country legally or asylum seekers, but at least it is a start.

 

[pknopp]

Neat, and one of the rights that should be removed would be for those who have broken the law by entering our country illegally should not be able to have children that are citizens.

You know how to do so. The Constitution is quite clear there also.

If they are illegal, they lose that right. This would not account for those traveling into the country legally or asylum seekers, but at least it is a start.

Again, get started on it. You can't just waive your arms and make it happen.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Right and the left is going nuts now when we attempt to deport the mom making the specious argument that we are deporting US citizens. She brings her citizen baby with her most of the time, but what if she didn’t? Who would take care of them? Why should we be on the hook for healthcare(Medicaid). We all pay for that. It makes no sense to allow people to come in to have citizen babies. It isn’t good for our country.

As for automatic weapons, you can only have fully automatic weapons manufactured before 1986, after jumping through hoops. But, to make my point, what about people who have felonies who aren’t allowed to own guns? What part of the 2nd Amendment mentions that? Right, it doesn’t, in fact it states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” People means everybody, right? Citizen, non-citizen, criminal, non-criminal, everybody. What did we do? We passed a law in 1968 putting restrictions on this right because we recognized that these were not issues that were faced back in the late 1700’s when this amendment was passed. I supposed Republicans could pass a law banning birthright citizenship, essentially re-interpreting the 2nd Amendment if that makes you feel any better.

You are incorrect, but do blather on needlessly!

A child of an illegal immigrant must return with the mother unless the child can be adopted or cared for by legal US residents. There is no such thing as a so-called anchor baby.

The difference in the 2nd Amendment and birthright citizenship is we have SCOTUS ruling on legislation regarding gun rights. Such does not yet exist for birthright citizenship being removed by an executive order, but don't fret! It's on its way!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neat, and one of the rights that should be removed would be for those who have broken the law by entering our country illegally should not be able to have children that are citizens. If they are illegal, they lose that right. This would not account for those traveling into the country legally or asylum seekers, but at least it is a start.

Great! As long as it is done by an amendment!

 

[ThisIsMe]

I am not a lefty in any way, shape or form. Just FYI.

Either way, if you believe the text is the ONLY thing that matters, then we need to change a few things. Gun laws would be one, and how our voting process works would be another.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Which means the law doesn't cover it.

Not in a clear way.

 

[pknopp]

Not in a clear way.

The law doesnt work that way.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The law doesnt work that way.

I wish that were the case.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Either way, if you believe the text is the ONLY thing that matters, then we need to change a few things. Gun laws would be one, and how our voting process works would be another.

What is wrong with the current gun laws? I see no problem with the current application. Most are too strict and could easily be repealed.