Now that the good guys are in charge, is it time to revisit the 14th amendment?

[Claudette]

New wide-ranging analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies‘ Steven Camarotta reveals that there are an estimated 28,000 births to illegal aliens every year in the Los Angeles metro area, exceeding the total number of U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. and eventually are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the process known as “chain migration.”

More Anchor Baby Births in Los Angeles than Total U.S. Births in 14 States

If you want to stop the flies from buzzing around you, close the pancake syrup container if you're going to sit outside.

For years the left has been telling us we don't need a wall, just a heavy fine or prison time for employers who hire illegals. Well I have to agree with that, but I also think that anchor babies are just as much of a problem. Come to the US, find a way to stay for a few months, and pop out a baby(s) so you have an excuse to have to be here.

Time for that to stop.

So your goal is to reduce the demand for our real estate?

I fear loans off our projected real estate values churn our economy. Ask George Bush what happens when imiginary value disappears and ppl have to make the payments they signed up for.

I'll meet you on stopping illegal immigration if we can double the number of legal inmigrands next year. I have looked to the Big Government past and decided we should apply what we learned from The Homestead Act to our empty cities in the Midwest and East.

So in other words you want the US to look like China in another 50 years or so. We currently allow one million new people a year in this country.

Don’t worry about real estate. I believe it was Roy Rogers who once said “Buy land. God ain’t making any more of it.”


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

We don't need any more people here legal or otherwise.

We need to stop allowing people in for five years or more. We have enough people in this country.

You don't speak for the whole country. Quiet.

Neither do you.
Quiet.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

New wide-ranging analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies‘ Steven Camarotta reveals that there are an estimated 28,000 births to illegal aliens every year in the Los Angeles metro area, exceeding the total number of U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. and eventually are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the process known as “chain migration.”

More Anchor Baby Births in Los Angeles than Total U.S. Births in 14 States

If you want to stop the flies from buzzing around you, close the pancake syrup container if you're going to sit outside.

For years the left has been telling us we don't need a wall, just a heavy fine or prison time for employers who hire illegals. Well I have to agree with that, but I also think that anchor babies are just as much of a problem. Come to the US, find a way to stay for a few months, and pop out a baby(s) so you have an excuse to have to be here.

Time for that to stop.

So your goal is to reduce the demand for our real estate?

I fear loans off our projected real estate values churn our economy. Ask George Bush what happens when imiginary value disappears and ppl have to make the payments they signed up for.

I'll meet you on stopping illegal immigration if we can double the number of legal inmigrands next year. I have looked to the Big Government past and decided we should apply what we learned from The Homestead Act to our empty cities in the Midwest and East.

So in other words you want the US to look like China in another 50 years or so. We currently allow one million new people a year in this country.

Don’t worry about real estate. I believe it was Roy Rogers who once said “Buy land. God ain’t making any more of it.”


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

We don't need any more people here legal or otherwise.

We need to stop allowing people in for five years or more. We have enough people in this country.

Not only that but they are not assimilating well which is why we are being forced into being a bilingual country. We have over 340 million people here now, that’s more than enough.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bendog]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

Are you attempting to somehow argue that the people behind the 14th didn't think all people born here would be citizens, and perhaps they didn't understand the consequences, so we need to interpret the words.? LOL

 

[g5000]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

And yet you want to change the Constitution...

So you are a "constitutionalist" except when you're not.

 

[Claudette]

New wide-ranging analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies‘ Steven Camarotta reveals that there are an estimated 28,000 births to illegal aliens every year in the Los Angeles metro area, exceeding the total number of U.S. births in 14 states and the District of Columbia.

The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. and eventually are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the process known as “chain migration.”

More Anchor Baby Births in Los Angeles than Total U.S. Births in 14 States

If you want to stop the flies from buzzing around you, close the pancake syrup container if you're going to sit outside.

For years the left has been telling us we don't need a wall, just a heavy fine or prison time for employers who hire illegals. Well I have to agree with that, but I also think that anchor babies are just as much of a problem. Come to the US, find a way to stay for a few months, and pop out a baby(s) so you have an excuse to have to be here.

Time for that to stop.

So your goal is to reduce the demand for our real estate?

I fear loans off our projected real estate values churn our economy. Ask George Bush what happens when imiginary value disappears and ppl have to make the payments they signed up for.

I'll meet you on stopping illegal immigration if we can double the number of legal inmigrands next year. I have looked to the Big Government past and decided we should apply what we learned from The Homestead Act to our empty cities in the Midwest and East.

So in other words you want the US to look like China in another 50 years or so. We currently allow one million new people a year in this country.

Don’t worry about real estate. I believe it was Roy Rogers who once said “Buy land. God ain’t making any more of it.”


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

We don't need any more people here legal or otherwise.

We need to stop allowing people in for five years or more. We have enough people in this country.

Not only that but they are not assimilating well which is why we are being forced into being a bilingual country. We have over 340 million people here now, that’s more than enough.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Anyone we allow in from now on has to be someone who has a skill we in this country need. No more welfare assholes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

And yet you want to change the Constitution...

So you are a "constitutionalist" except when you're not.

Where do you people get this idea I want to change the Constitution? Please.......quote a post of mine.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

Are you attempting to somehow argue that the people behind the 14th didn't think all people born here would be citizens, and perhaps they didn't understand the consequences, so we need to interpret the words.? LOL

The amendment was not written for anchor babies. It needs to be interpreted properly to stop anchor babies from being born here.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[bendog]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

Are you attempting to somehow argue that the people behind the 14th didn't think all people born here would be citizens, and perhaps they didn't understand the consequences, so we need to interpret the words.? LOL

The amendment was not written for anchor babies. It needs to be interpreted properly to stop anchor babies from being born here.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

How do you know it wasn't written for anchor babies. It was EXPLICITLY written to keep Americans from importing foreign workers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

Are you attempting to somehow argue that the people behind the 14th didn't think all people born here would be citizens, and perhaps they didn't understand the consequences, so we need to interpret the words.? LOL

The amendment was not written for anchor babies. It needs to be interpreted properly to stop anchor babies from being born here.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

How do you know it wasn't written for anchor babies. It was EXPLICITLY written to keep Americans from importing foreign workers.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

 

[g5000]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

Are you attempting to somehow argue that the people behind the 14th didn't think all people born here would be citizens, and perhaps they didn't understand the consequences, so we need to interpret the words.? LOL

The amendment was not written for anchor babies. It needs to be interpreted properly to stop anchor babies from being born here.

"Anchor babies" is a made up phrase to trigger you bigots.

And in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment's intention was to ensure citizenship as a birthright to all persons born here.

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.

Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

A few years later, the Supreme Court affirmed the intent of the 14th in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

Are you attempting to somehow argue that the people behind the 14th didn't think all people born here would be citizens, and perhaps they didn't understand the consequences, so we need to interpret the words.? LOL

The amendment was not written for anchor babies. It needs to be interpreted properly to stop anchor babies from being born here.

"Anchor babies" is a made up phrase to trigger you bigots.

And in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment's intention was to ensure citizenship as a birthright to all persons born here.

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.

Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

A few years later, the Supreme Court affirmed the intent of the 14th in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

There you go, persons born in the US who are foreigners. That says it all. Furthermore there was no immigration at the time it was written. Therefore anybody could come strolling along and get into our country. There was (at the time) no need to address anchor babies. It was not written for them, it was written for former slaves.

 

[g5000]

So the good 'ol boys are in charge Ray?

Perhaps that's how you look at it from your myopic view. But by the good guys, I mean constitutionalists.

Are you attempting to somehow argue that the people behind the 14th didn't think all people born here would be citizens, and perhaps they didn't understand the consequences, so we need to interpret the words.? LOL

The amendment was not written for anchor babies. It needs to be interpreted properly to stop anchor babies from being born here.

"Anchor babies" is a made up phrase to trigger you bigots.

And in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment's intention was to ensure citizenship as a birthright to all persons born here.

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors.

Another Congressman (Doolittle) attempted to add a change to the 14th amendment which would exclude Indians, and Howard pointed out Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the US, and therefore the change was unnecessary.

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

A few years later, the Supreme Court affirmed the intent of the 14th in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

There you go, persons born in the US who are foreigners. That says it all. Furthermore there was no immigration at the time it was written. Therefore anybody could come strolling along and get into our country. There was (at the time) no need to address anchor babies. It was not written for them, it was written for former slaves.

Way to misread the context!

Read the whole sentence, idiot. The foreigners to which the sponsor of the 14th amendment was referring are those "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States".

He then plainly states the birthright "will include every other class of persons".

So unless you are a child of an ambassador or foreign minister, you're in.


Jesus, you can't even comprehend simple English!

 

[g5000]

A few years later, the Supreme Court decision affirmed what the sponsor of the 14th Amendment said: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A few years later, the Supreme Court decision affirmed what the sponsor of the 14th Amendment said: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Which again, is why I say that needs to be revisited by this court or perhaps an even more conservative court. As long as we have this anchor baby rule, it's one more thing to lure illegals into this country.

 

[g5000]

A few years later, the Supreme Court decision affirmed what the sponsor of the 14th Amendment said: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Which again, is why I say that needs to be revisited by this court or perhaps an even more conservative court. As long as we have this anchor baby rule, it's one more thing to lure illegals into this country.

See?

You want to change the Constitution!

The very guy who WROTE the amendment made it very clear that the birthright includes "every other class of persons".

There is nothing to interpret. You want to rewrite it.

 

[g5000]

I've often shown how pseudocons claim to love the Constitution, except when they don't.

This is another example.

If you are not a child born to an ambassador or foreign minister, you're in. No ifs, ands, or buts. The very author of the amendment made that crystal clear.

And boy oh boy do the bigoted shitheads hate that!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A few years later, the Supreme Court decision affirmed what the sponsor of the 14th Amendment said: United States v. Wong Kim Ark

A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Which again, is why I say that needs to be revisited by this court or perhaps an even more conservative court. As long as we have this anchor baby rule, it's one more thing to lure illegals into this country.

From my link above:

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

See?

You want to change the Constitution!

It sounds like he wants judicial activism. To change the 14th, we need an amendment to repeal it.

I want the 14th gone, just like the other guys, but I will not give in to judicial activism to do it. I have principles.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

See?

You want to change the Constitution!

It sounds like he wants judicial activism. To change the 14th, we need an amendment to repeal it.

I want the 14th gone, just like the other guys, but I will not give in to judicial activism to do it. I have principles.

Judicial activism is inserting things into a law or right that was never there before. In this case, it's a conflict of two opinions of what the 14th was designed for. That's what the Supreme Court is supposed to determine. I believe that it was created for former slaves and their children, and some believe it was created for anchor babies which there was no such thing at the time.

 

[JoeB131]

For years the left has been telling us we don't need a wall, just a heavy fine or prison time for employers who hire illegals. Well I have to agree with that, but I also think that anchor babies are just as much of a problem. Come to the US, find a way to stay for a few months, and pop out a baby(s) so you have an excuse to have to be here.

Time for that to stop.

Not really.

You see immigration as a problem... most sensible people don't.