Birthright Citizenship
notupset said:
It might be worth changing the constitution. The way it is currently working is a not a great plan.
Please tell us what section(s) of the Constitution that you would like to change/delete. Also, I have you thought about whether you would desire to convene a Constitutional Convention (or, alternatively, presenting such proposed amendment(s) to the US House and Senate).
==========================================
There are two ways of amending the US Constitution, only one method has ever been used. All 27 Amendments to the Constitution have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approved of the proposed amendment. And, then the proposed amendment is sent to the state legislatures for a vote. Three-fourths of the state legislatures must affirm the proposed Amendment in order for the amendment to be considered ratified..
Alternatively, an amendment can be sought by convening a new Constitutional Convention. In order for a Constitutional Convention to be convened, at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the States must request the Constitutional Convention be convened. At the Constitutional Convention, each state's representatives can propose as many amendments as they may deem necessary. Any amendments that are finalized at the Constitutional Convention must then be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures before the amendment is considered to have been ratified.
@RealityForAll, that is true strictly speaking, but the 17th amendment was ratified because the state legislatures were very close to achieving enough support for a constitutional convention. The amendment changes senatorial elections such that the people now elect senators rather than them being appointed by state legislatures. The senate wanted to keep it that way, but the people did not.
There is a movement now to take big money out of politics. We have five states already which have passed the resolution, so we need 29 more. New Jersey is one of them, so thank you, New Jersey.
Follow Wolf PAC if you want to get involved in that.
Robert_Casotto said:
As usual, wrong.
Wong Kim applied only to children of permanent legal resident aliens. As even a cursory reading of the actual case would reveal.
A cursory reading of Slaughterhouse reveals the case had nothing to do with the children of foreigners. The bleeding chunk of text you forcibly extract was part of the Justice's background argument, but the question before the court, and the actual decision, was about the rights of US citizens vs. the rights of citizens of Louisiana.
LOST said:
notupset said:What parts would you like to see changed?
It might be worth changing the constitution. The way it is currently working is a not a great plan.
one question I have is whether or not anyone who thinks immigration is a problem actually knows any real statistics about it. Because I don't know of any stats that suggest that immigration is a problem.
The one thing that Trump and his cult point to is how much undocumented immigrants "cost." If one looks at what those costs are, the majority of the dollars spent are on education for those "birthright citizen" children. The children citizens who grow up to get legal jobs in the U.S. That are going to help pay for our Social Security. Those children.
(continuing my response to Robert Casotto) In more-or-less legal terms (and I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but I don't think you are either) the comment was ober dictum, an aside, which didn't concern the actual question before the Court, and has no controlling legal authority.
Citing your same Cornell law site,
Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:
The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for
That page goes on to quote no less a personage than Justice John Marshall, who said,
It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated.
More here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The Constitution makes it pretty clear that the courts only have jurisdiction over actual cases put before them. John Jay was requested by George Washington to give advice on a matter that wasn't actually before the court. The Court declined to do so.
oots said:
did anyone see the political cartoon in the star ledger today-says it all ( sorry no pic)
Here you go, and you're 100% correct.
It's difficult to follow the logic of denying full citizenship to someone who was born and raised here. By the time someone turns 18 and can exercise the rights and duties of citizenship, the've been pretty firmly woven into the warp and woof of this country. In what sense, exactly, is such a person not American?
Of course, there have always been those amongst us who would exclude those of the "wrong" ancestry or "wrong" skin color from citizenship. The 14th amendment was directly aimed at defeating that racist viewpoint. Trump's attack on the amendment is I suppose slightly more subtle than marching by torchlight on the white house lawn chanting "they will not replace us," but not by much.
The "logic", such as it is, is that those children, after they turn 21 will sponsor their parents for citizenship, "rewarding" them for coming here as undocumented immigrants. As if people come here, have babies in the hopes that they can stay 21 years to be sponsored for legal residency. It's stupid, but let's face it, the people who are ardent Trump supporters aren't big on logic. Over the past year or so I've given up trying to make excuses for them. After trying to have discussions with them online I'm now convinced that they are either too stupid to argue rationally, or not too stupid, but too committed to Trump to argue rationally.
PVW said:
It's difficult to follow the logic of denying full citizenship to someone who was born and raised here.
Put on racist goggles and the logic becomes much clearer.
ml1 said:
The "logic", such as it is, is that those children, after they turn 21 will sponsor their parents for citizenship, "rewarding" them for coming here as undocumented immigrants. As if people come here, have babies in the hopes that they can stay 21 years to be sponsored for legal residency.
Actually they do, but it's not that the parents and children stay in this country after the baby is born, but when the child is older they attend college and/or get jobs in the US and then bring their families. And, there are also some, like younger siblings of the DACA kids, who are born into families that have come here and stayed. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm one of those people who believe that the whole point of the USA is to be a land of immigrants and I think that pretty much anyone who wants to come here and make a life for themself and their family should have the opportunity to do so and it should be legal to do so. So sue me!
sac said:Personally, I don't have a problem with it, but I'm one of those people who believe that the whole point of the USA is to be a land of immigrants and I think that pretty much anyone who wants to come here and make a life for themself and their family should have the opportunity to do so and it should be legal to do so. So sue me!
Or sue Emma Lazarus.
Some people remember where they came from and how they got here:
Emma Lazarus was born in New York City, July 22, 1849,[5] into a large Sephardic Jewish family.[a] She was the fourth of seven children of Moses Lazarus, a wealthy Jewish merchant,[7] and sugar refiner;[8] and Esther Nathan.[9] One of her great-grandfathers on the Lazarus side was from Germany;[10] the rest of her Lazarus and Nathan ancestors were originally from Portugal and resident in New York long before the American Revolution, being among the first Jewish emigrants to the United States.[8] Lazarus's great-great-grandmother on her mother's side, Grace Seixas Nathan (born in New York in 1752) was also a poet.[11] Lazarus was related through her mother to Benjamin N. Cardozo, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first Jewish settlement in what became the United States was in Dutch New Amsterdam, which is now known as New York City. The first significant group of Jews to come to New York, then the colony New Amsterdam, came in September 1654 as refugees from Recife, Brazil. Portugal had just conquered Brazil from the Netherlands and the Spanish and Portuguese Jews there promptly fled.
... governor Peter Stuyvesant who was at first unwilling to accept them. Jewish stockholders in the Dutch West India Company convinced the company to pressure the governor into accepting the arrivals, but the latter still imposed numerous restrictions and taxes on his Jewish subjects.
Robert_Casotto said:
How can we deny 14A birthright to children born in the U.S. to foreign Diplomats?
Have we no sense of decency?
https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/born-in-us-to-foreign-diplomat
“A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of United States law. Therefore, that person cannot be considered a U.S. citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Nor a birth at an airport by a foreign national nor some one in the country illegally - they are subjects of their home country - nor the thousands of folks who come here just to give birth - this must to stop!
An account with three posts in the last 10 years suddenly surfaces to respond to a comment from last fall?
What's up with all the sleeper posters?
Klinker said:
An account with three posts in the last 10 years suddenly surfaces to respond to a comment from last fall?
What's up with all the sleeper posters?
Getting through the Trump years by hibernating?
He did make one post back in 2008....
Klinker said:
He did make one post back in 2008....
comandante Sep 28, 2008 at 7:19am Edited
Who is Obama and what part did Frank Marshall Davis play in his early development? Davis was prominent member of the communist party U.S. - an organization financed by the Soviet Union; he never had a constructive word to say about the U.S. He was a father figure and mentor to a 10 year old Obama until he left to attend university. As a young person seeking his black identity it is more than possible that Davis left an indelible mark. Could this explain Obama life long list of hard left associates.
Considering the numerous attacks by Nan and others on Obama for being too "centrist" this is hilarious.
STANV said:
Klinker said:Considering the numerous attacks by Nan and others on Obama for being too "centrist" this is hilarious.
He did make one post back in 2008....
comandante Sep 28, 2008 at 7:19am Edited
Who is Obama and what part did Frank Marshall Davis play in his early development? Davis was prominent member of the communist party U.S. - an organization financed by the Soviet Union; he never had a constructive word to say about the U.S. He was a father figure and mentor to a 10 year old Obama until he left to attend university. As a young person seeking his black identity it is more than possible that Davis left an indelible mark. Could this explain Obama life long list of hard left associates.
Takes you back, doesn't it. The truth is that any Democrat is going to be viewed as a Socialist by the looney right (which is to say, the right) so there's not much point in holding back.
To be fair, I think commandante's main point was that Obama, like Frank Davis, was black and, thus, not quite an American. The communist thing was just kind of secondary.
Klinker said:
To be fair, I think commandante's main point was that Obama, like Frank Davis, was black and, thus, not quite an American. The communist thing was just kind of secondary.
One of the weirdest internet conspiracy theories was that Davis was Obama's actual father.
under the law, a person born to non citizens in the US who never even lives in the US for more than a week, can legally be President.
I just heard a story of a young man who was born to birthing tourist from Greece....they came here to give birth so the baby would be a citizen. They went back to Greece days after his birth. He had limited English or knowledge of the US, but came back at 18 trying to get a job as a police officer. He was eligible to apply because he was a citizen. He didn't make it at that time because of the language barrier....i can only hope by the time he masters English he is more familiar with the US when I am guessing he will try again to be a cop.
jmitw said:
under the law, a person born to non citizens in the US who never even lives in the US for more than a week, can legally be President.
That and more than 60 million votes.
jmitw said:
under the law, a person born to non citizens in the US who never even lives in the US for more than a week, can legally be President.
Incorrect. Read the Constitution and try again.
mrincredible said:
jmitw said:Incorrect. Read the Constitution and try again.
under the law, a person born to non citizens in the US who never even lives in the US for more than a week, can legally be President.
I read it, as well as an article recapping some court decisions on the matter. What did I miss?
You need to be a resident for 14 years. The idea you could be born here then whisked away to parts foreign only to return at the age of 35 and triumphantly carry the Presidential election is a bit of xenophobic rhetorical balderdash intended to incite fear.
jmitw said:
under the law, a person born to non citizens in the US who never even lives in the US for more than a week, can legally be President.
I just heard a story of a young man who was born to birthing tourist from Greece....they came here to give birth so the baby would be a citizen. They went back to Greece days after his birth. He had limited English or knowledge of the US, but came back at 18 trying to get a job as a police officer. He was eligible to apply because he was a citizen. He didn't make it at that time because of the language barrier....i can only hope by the time he masters English he is more familiar with the US when I am guessing he will try again to be a cop.
I watched a film about an Irish fella who became a Wisconsin State Trooper and fell in love with a woman from Chicago who baked cakes.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
For Sale
Advertisement
.jpg){kind=link}
Not sure what problem you are looking to solve, but give it a shot.