Why Do Liberals Get Angry When...

[MathewSmith]

Trump wants to end birth right citizenship?

I understand that to re-write citizenship standards is complicated. But it's impossible to live like this, don't you think so? A child born in the US to citizens of another country would return to the country their parents reside in. That's the only right decision. Always was and always will.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hell they can not even comprehend the difference between a legal alien and a illegal one.

 

[EatMorChikin]

Went round and round with these clowns all weekend about it. And it really is like debating with spoiled children. I do think there is growing sentiment, to do something about an article that is being abused.

 

[strollingbones]

how funny....in your anger you want to change a fundamental concept of america....and yet you swear you want to go back to the 'good old days'...and of course you had no problems with separating minors from their parents and putting them in detention camps o right for their own safety....eye roll...perhaps the word you need to look up is compassion

o and stop trying to deport american citizens...do you understand what an american citizen is or do i need to review that for yall

 

[S.J.]

Trump is absolutely right on this issue and has plenty of public support for his opinion.

 

[Boss]

The thing that gets me is how we seem to have liberals prospectively making things constitutional on the basis of a few ill-informed opinions. The Constitution makes clear in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4; The Congress has the power to regulate naturalization, not the Court... not Liberals interpreting court rulings in cases about legal immigrants.

They run to Wong, an 1890 case regarding legal immigrants who were "subject to jurisdiction" not illegal aliens who weren't. They totally ignore a case 6 years before, where a Native American was denied birthright citizenship on the basis of jurisdiction. If a Native American born on US soil is not a citizen by birth, how can an illegal immigrant from another country be? Does that make ANY sense?

This is simple and anyone who has any education on the Constitution should know how simple. This is one of a precious few powers that is delegated to our Congress. Citizenship (aka: Naturalization) is a matter of statute administered by Congress. The 14th does not contradict this, it reinforces it in Section 5. Congress has plenary power. Period. End of debate.

 

[strollingbones]

why is he right on this issue and since when does public support prove the value of an idea...

 

[Boss]

why is he right on this issue and since when does public support prove the value of an idea...

There is nothing in the Constitution which confers birthright citizenship automatically. No SCOTUS ruling has ever been made in such a case and it wouldn't matter if they did rule... it's not in their power. The Constitution states it clearly in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. The Congress has plenary power in determining who is a citizen. No one else gets to decide.

 

[S.J.]

why is he right on this issue and since when does public support prove the value of an idea...

The baby would not have been born on U.S. soil if the mother had not been in violation of the law by being here. That's why he is right on this issue and I didn't say that public support proves the value of the idea but the public support will enable President Trump to end this back door approach to circumvent the law.

 

[EverCurious]

If we look into the constitution as originally written, it doesn't give congress the right or power to neither ban nor allow immigration, rather it puts that power in the states themselves. On the other hand the Chinese anit-imigration act or 1887 (*I believe) did so. So do we repeal the above and put the power in the states, or do we say Congress /can/ allow/disallow it and leave it up to a vote? ~ I personally would like to see it put to the states because after all they know their financial and economical situation far better than the fat cats in DC, but we might have to have some kind of "free passage" through anti-immigration states if some land locked states who would welcome them.

I think folks completely misunderstand the big issue that the majority of us have with illegal aliens is that they do not pay taxes, yet they are using the same resources as everyone else. If they were not just coming up here for free shit, it wouldn't be such an issue for most folks. This isn't the 1880's when racism was the main reason for excluding migration (as was the case in the anti-immigration act) It's about the economy and American's, not /against/ any foreigners. That changes the "compassion" situation. No one wants these refugees living in third worlds, but at the same time, part of being an American is receiving the benefits of citizenship, it means that you are contributing to the betterment of your nation, and more so in my mind, what kind of person moves to a new country and doesn't help support said country? These are not people I particularly /want/ in my country, which is why I'm kind of on the anti-immigration side of things. I don't think we should ban all immigration, but we need to ensure that these folks are becoming part of the country, not just ya know freeloading off our generosity.

 

[candycorn]

Trump wants to end birth right citizenship?

I understand that to re-write citizenship standards is complicated. But it's impossible to live like this, don't you think so? A child born in the US to citizens of another country would return to the country their parents reside in. That's the only right decision. Always was and always will.

Impossible to live like what?

 

[Ravi]

Trump wants to end birth right citizenship?

I understand that to re-write citizenship standards is complicated. But it's impossible to live like this, don't you think so? A child born in the US to citizens of another country would return to the country their parents reside in. That's the only right decision. Always was and always will.

Because it would be unconstitutional .

 

[Boss]

how funny....in your anger you want to change a fundamental concept of america....and yet you swear you want to go back to the 'good old days'...and of course you had no problems with separating minors from their parents and putting them in detention camps o right for their own safety....eye roll...perhaps the word you need to look up is compassion

o and stop trying to deport american citizens...do you understand what an american citizen is or do i need to review that for yall

Yes, let's review... An illegal alien who crossed our border illegally and came into our country illegally, is not a citizen of the United States. Because we are compassionate and cannot separate parents from their minor children, we have to keep children with parents.

There is nothing in the Constitution which grants citizenship by right of birth on US soil. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to those who are born on US soil or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This is VERY important.

Someone who is illegally in our country from another country, is not "subject to our jurisdiction" they are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they are from. We make exceptions for certain people who come here legally, they are not here illegally and may or may not be subject to our jurisdiction while here. Their children born here may or may not be considered citizens, it's a matter of statutory law set forth by Congress.

 

[candycorn]

If we look into the constitution as originally written, it doesn't give congress the right or power to neither ban nor allow immigration, rather it puts that power in the states themselves. On the other hand the Chinese anit-imigration act or 1887 (*I believe) did so. So do we repeal the above and put the power in the states, or do we say Congress /can/ allow/disallow it and leave it up to a vote? ~ I personally would like to see it put to the states because after all they know their financial and economical situation far better than the fat cats in DC, but we might have to have some kind of "free passage" through anti-immigration states if some land locked states who would welcome them.

I think folks completely misunderstand the big issue that the majority of us have with illegal aliens is that they do not pay taxes, yet they are using the same resources as everyone else. If they were not just coming up here for free shit, it wouldn't be such an issue for most folks. This isn't the 1880's when racism was the main reason for excluding migration (as was the case in the anti-immigration act) It's about the economy and American's, not /against/ any foreigners. That changes the "compassion" situation. No one wants these refugees living in third worlds, but at the same time, part of being an American is receiving the benefits of citizenship, it means that you are contributing to the betterment of your nation, and more so in my mind, what kind of person moves to a new country and doesn't help support said country? These are not people I particularly /want/ in my country, which is why I'm kind of on the anti-immigration side of things. I don't think we should ban all immigration, but we need to ensure that these folks are becoming part of the country, not just ya know freeloading off our generosity.

Good post.

I am all for building a wall across both the northern and southern borders. In this day and age, you can make a bomb in your area and drive it into my area. While it's true you could still do that with border checkpoints, at least we have a chance to interdict the device. So I say build walls. But I hope everyone understands that as long as there has been walls, there have been ways to get around them. It will not end illegal immigration. You say you think folks miss the big issue...I think Trump supporters miss the big issue. It's bewildering that so many are being lead to believe that if you build this wall, that will stop anything. It will stop nothing; only limit the payload. Think of the wall as one of those turnstiles they used to have where you could walk into or out of a store but not take the shopping cart with you.

As for illegals not paying taxes; flat out wrong. Sales taxes are what fund the local economies. Illegals as well as legal immigrants shop at places just like the rest of us and pay their taxes--just like we all do. Federal taxes...that is another matter.

As for the rest of your post...you're right. This is why I say build the wall and simply declare those who are here who haven't been arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes as citizens. Bring them into the structures of taxation, commerce, etc... and let them start earning dollars (and being taxed on those earnings) legally. As for the supposed "line" they are supposed to get at the end of...sorry.

 

[Ravi]

how funny....in your anger you want to change a fundamental concept of america....and yet you swear you want to go back to the 'good old days'...and of course you had no problems with separating minors from their parents and putting them in detention camps o right for their own safety....eye roll...perhaps the word you need to look up is compassion

o and stop trying to deport american citizens...do you understand what an american citizen is or do i need to review that for yall

Yes, let's review... An illegal alien who crossed our border illegally and came into our country illegally, is not a citizen of the United States. Because we are compassionate and cannot separate parents from their minor children, we have to keep children with parents.

There is nothing in the Constitution which grants citizenship by right of birth on US soil. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to those who are born on US soil or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This is VERY important.

Someone who is illegally in our country from another country, is not "subject to our jurisdiction" they are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they are from. We make exceptions for certain people who come here legally, they are not here illegally and may or may not be subject to our jurisdiction while here. Their children born here may or may not be considered citizens, it's a matter of statutory law set forth by Congress.

If they aren't subject to our jurisdiction they aren't illegal and can't be deported and can commit any crime with impunity.

 

[Boss]

If we look into the constitution as originally written, it doesn't give congress the right or power to neither ban nor allow immigration

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Now... I don't know about banning, allowing, or what legal immigration policy has to do with this... but Congress is given plenary power on matters of who is a naturalized citizen of the US.

 

[EverCurious]

If we look into the constitution as originally written, it doesn't give congress the right or power to neither ban nor allow immigration, rather it puts that power in the states themselves. On the other hand the Chinese anit-imigration act or 1887 (*I believe) did so. So do we repeal the above and put the power in the states, or do we say Congress /can/ allow/disallow it and leave it up to a vote? ~ I personally would like to see it put to the states because after all they know their financial and economical situation far better than the fat cats in DC, but we might have to have some kind of "free passage" through anti-immigration states if some land locked states who would welcome them.

I think folks completely misunderstand the big issue that the majority of us have with illegal aliens is that they do not pay taxes, yet they are using the same resources as everyone else. If they were not just coming up here for free shit, it wouldn't be such an issue for most folks. This isn't the 1880's when racism was the main reason for excluding migration (as was the case in the anti-immigration act) It's about the economy and American's, not /against/ any foreigners. That changes the "compassion" situation. No one wants these refugees living in third worlds, but at the same time, part of being an American is receiving the benefits of citizenship, it means that you are contributing to the betterment of your nation, and more so in my mind, what kind of person moves to a new country and doesn't help support said country? These are not people I particularly /want/ in my country, which is why I'm kind of on the anti-immigration side of things. I don't think we should ban all immigration, but we need to ensure that these folks are becoming part of the country, not just ya know freeloading off our generosity.

Good post.

I am all for building a wall across both the northern and southern borders. In this day and age, you can make a bomb in your area and drive it into my area. While it's true you could still do that with border checkpoints, at least we have a chance to interdict the device. So I say build walls. But I hope everyone understands that as long as there has been walls, there have been ways to get around them. It will not end illegal immigration. You say you think folks miss the big issue...I think Trump supporters miss the big issue. It's bewildering that so many are being lead to believe that if you build this wall, that will stop anything. It will stop nothing; only limit the payload. Think of the wall as one of those turnstiles they used to have where you could walk into or out of a store but not take the shopping cart with you.

As for illegals not paying taxes; flat out wrong. Sales taxes are what fund the local economies. Illegals as well as legal immigrants shop at places just like the rest of us and pay their taxes--just like we all do. Federal taxes...that is another matter.

As for the rest of your post...you're right. This is why I say build the wall and simply declare those who are here who haven't been arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes as citizens. Bring them into the structures of taxation, commerce, etc... and let them start earning dollars (and being taxed on those earnings) legally. As for the supposed "line" they are supposed to get at the end of...sorry.

The big city here doesn't have sales tax, actually most of the state doesn't (the other 4 "big" cities have sales taxes, but their really tiny, maybe 100k people in the valley, 50k maybe in Fairbanks, figure 30k in the capital, maybe 20k in Seward) We make almost all our state money off taxing oil companies.

Still don't you think the fed taxes matter too? I mean after all it contributes to paying for every state and cities funds to build roads, provide police/firemen, maintain gov services, and so forth.

 

[EverCurious]

If we look into the constitution as originally written, it doesn't give congress the right or power to neither ban nor allow immigration

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Now... I don't know about banning, allowing, or what legal immigration policy has to do with this... but Congress is given plenary power on matters of who is a naturalized citizen of the US.

That gives them the power to say how someone becomes a citizen. It does not give them the power to ban nor allow /immigration/ as a whole, only the tests or w/e a non-American has to take to achieve citizenship. Either way, it doesn't say jack about /illegal/ aliens.

Edit - sorry sent too soon. The 14th amendment says that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen. That's pretty much the extent of /constitutional/ discussion on immigration.

 

[Boss]

how funny....in your anger you want to change a fundamental concept of america....and yet you swear you want to go back to the 'good old days'...and of course you had no problems with separating minors from their parents and putting them in detention camps o right for their own safety....eye roll...perhaps the word you need to look up is compassion

o and stop trying to deport american citizens...do you understand what an american citizen is or do i need to review that for yall

Yes, let's review... An illegal alien who crossed our border illegally and came into our country illegally, is not a citizen of the United States. Because we are compassionate and cannot separate parents from their minor children, we have to keep children with parents.

There is nothing in the Constitution which grants citizenship by right of birth on US soil. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to those who are born on US soil or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This is VERY important.

Someone who is illegally in our country from another country, is not "subject to our jurisdiction" they are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they are from. We make exceptions for certain people who come here legally, they are not here illegally and may or may not be subject to our jurisdiction while here. Their children born here may or may not be considered citizens, it's a matter of statutory law set forth by Congress.

If they aren't subject to our jurisdiction they aren't illegal and can't be deported and can commit any crime with impunity.

You're misinterpreting terms. You are presuming "jurisdiction" to mean like a police jurisdiction... that's not what it means. It's meaning in this context is political allegiance owed. In order for a foreigner to change allegiance they have to undergo a naturalization process... illegals haven't.

And when we talk about "allegiance" it's not like "the pledge of allegiance" where they can recite some magical phrase and become compliant. The allegiance can not be partial, questionable, ambiguous or incomplete. In other words the illegal alien must become legal and in compliance with the law.

 

[Boss]

Edit - sorry sent too soon. The 14th amendment says that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen.

No, that is NOT what it says.