Poll
![]() | 5 votes (21.73%) | ||
![]() | 15 votes (65.21%) | ||
![]() | 2 votes (8.69%) | ||
![]() | 1 vote (4.34%) |
23 members have voted
The Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship over 150 years.
Here is where the Candidates stand
I would think its literally impossible to change the 14th amendment yet the Republicans are making it an issue. Why?
Against
Donald Trump
Ben Carson
Bobby Jindal
Scott Walker
Lindsey Graham
Rick Santorum
Rand Paul
Undecided or position unclear
Chris Christie
Ted Cruz
For
John Kasich
Marco Rubio
Carly Fiorina
Jeb Bush
George Pataki
Mike Huckabee
Martin O'Malley
Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton
Jim Gilmore
edit- sorry about miss spelling support in title thread- cant edit title thread. Maybe a mod can fix the spelling.
What about Elk v. Wilkins?Quote: terapinedThe Supreme Court has upheld birthright citizenship over 150 years.
It is my understanding that those against birthright citizenship would use Amendment 14 to do so, not introduce another amendment. One could argue that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase in Section I of the amendment can be use to exclude those born of illegal aliens.
Given the current judicial environment, however, I can't see this withstanding litigation.
Edit -- Just saw this was a poll. What, no "bigot" option? :) Or does "Against birthright citizenship" = "I'm a Bigot?" ;) Or is it the last option that = "I'm a Bigot?"
Quote: JoemanWhat about Elk v. Wilkins?
It is my understanding that those against birthright citizenship would use Amendment 14 to do so, not introduce another amendment. One could argue that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase in Section I of the amendment can be use to exclude those born of illegal aliens.
Given the current judicial environment, however, I can't see this withstanding litigation.
Edit -- Just saw this was a poll. What, no "bigot" option? :) Or does "Against birthright citizenship" = "I'm a Bigot?" ;) Or is it the last option that = "I'm a Bigot?"
I think if you are against it terapined just assumes you're a bigot.
I'm also for keeping this issue on the top of people's minds as much as possible, because it is a clear winner for the Democrats. Republicans have learned nothing. Romney shot himself in the foot with "self-deportation" and now we have this.
Go Trump Go!
Quote: ams288I'm for birthright citizenship.
I'm also for keeping this issue on the top of people's minds as much as possible, because it is a clear winner for the Democrats. Republicans have learned nothing. Romney shot himself in the foot with "self-deportation" and now we have this.
Go Trump Go!
I am an independent and while I will probably not be voting for Trump if he wins the Republication nomination it is at least nice to see someone running for office that speaks without a filter. If we had more of these we might be more stuff done in Congress.
Guaranteed citizenship for a child born in the country with at least one U.S. citizen or permanent resident parent, yes. No for those whose parents are here illegally or on temporary visas. (As a compromise for those who are concerned about children who spent a significant part of their childhood in the U.S. suddenly being kicked out of the country once they're grown, I'd allow anyone who spent at least a certain number of their first 18 years in the country under whatever circumstances to be eligible to apply for guaranteed citizenship once adults - but it wouldn't extend to the parents.)
ETA: My proposal is "backwards compatible" with the original intent of the 14th Amendment of giving citizenship to freed slaves, since their parents were already in the country on a permanent basis (as slaves). In fact, given that the only definitive Supreme Court ruling concerns children of permanent residents, we may not even need a constitutional amendment (remember that Native Americans despite being physically born in the U.S. were not automatically citizens until 1924).
Now that I know, I got to ask, WHY is it an issue...
Quote: jessie.wilburnI am an independent and while I will probably not be voting for Trump if he wins the Republication nomination it is at least nice to see someone running for office that speaks without a filter. If we had more of these we might be more stuff done in Congress.
Wasn't the best poll ever presented, in terms of the choices.
Interesting topic though.
If you wade across the Rio Grande and 'drop/give birth to' your baby on the US side, then that baby is a US citizen?
If you can't make it across in time, and 'have/give birth to' the baby on the Mexican bank, then wade the river with baby in arms, then the baby is just another illegal alien?
If you drown on your way across, you and baby both, the whole problem just went away? Really?
I will think some more before I vote in this poll.
"Was edited for clarity" 2F
Deport them, yes expensive, when did the cost determine the difference between right and wrong? When did that happen? Really, when did that happen?
Right is right, wrong is wrong, sometimes it is very tricky to pick a choice, sometimes it is not.
I pick right, I oppose the 'birthright citizenship' concept.
Feel free to disagree, that is your right (well unless you are the illegal alien child of an illiegial mother, then I don't think you ( or your mother ) should vote here).
I took a stance, sometimes you need to take a stance.
I think we are defined by our stances, choose your's the best you can.
If no, how would this change anything
If yes, then my answer would really be based on what other country would accept me
Quote: TomGIf I am not a citizen by birth, would I be citizen of another country?
If no, how would this change anything
If yes, then my answer would really be based on what other country would accept me
"Among developed nations, only the US and Canada still offer automatic citizenship to children born on their soil. Not a single European country follows the practice."
It's not needed anymore, get rid of it.
Trump said last night that "many scholars" agree that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to "anchor babies." Of course, he forgot to specify who these "many scholars" actually were.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Southern Arizona gets tons of these. Pregnant illegal crosses the border. Has her baby at a border town. Baby is now a U.S. Citizen. That is not how the law was meant to be. It should be abolished.
The "law" is the 14th Amendment, and if you look through the legislative history, Congress actually did intend it to apply for children of immigrants, including "unwanted" immigrants like the Chinese. (There weren't "illegals" at the time because there wasn't any restriction on immigration until 1875 with the Page Act.)
Quote: EvenBobIt's not needed anymore, get rid of it.
Well, the following had a good run, but I guess times have changed and now we can take down the statue. Dumb broad.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Quote: EvenBob"Among developed nations, only the US and Canada still offer automatic citizenship to children born on their soil. Not a single European country follows the practice."
OK, I admit that is very interesting, even though I need to give all this some more thought.
SOURCE
DEVELOPED NATIONS*
Birthright Citizenship
YES
===
Canada Andorra
United States
NO
==
Andorra
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Faroe Islands
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Holy See
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Quote: EvenBob"Among developed nations, only the US and Canada still offer automatic citizenship to children born on their soil. Not a single European country follows the practice."Quote: TomGIf I am not a citizen by birth, would I be citizen of another country?
If no, how would this change anything
If yes, then my answer would really be based on what other country would accept me
It's not needed anymore, get rid of it.
But even if it isn't needed, why get rid of it if doing so means nothing changes? If I lost my US citizenship, I would just go about my life exactly the same as before. I guess I would be considered an alien, perhaps legal, perhaps illegal, but why would you care?
Quote: ams288It would take a constitutional amendment to change it, wouldn't it? Never gonna happen.
Trump said last night that "many scholars" agree that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to "anchor babies." Of course, he forgot to specify who these "many scholars" actually were.
Just what is the reason Trump can't do that and liberals can? I don't hear many of them defining who said what on every issue, yet you somehow think he should have said "who" in this case...
Quote: harvson3
Well, the following had a good run, but I guess times have changed and now we can take down the statue. Dumb broad.
Get rid of it for sure. It's not the 1880's
anymore, times change.
Oddly, the same strife continues around the world today, and America is still a beacon of hope.
Come to America... Today!
Quote: KellynbnfI voted against - but not because I'm racist or xenophobic...
I'm not ready to opine, so this is not support of this idea. However, I found this to be a terrific argument, and felt it was worthy to highlight. So, well done =) And maybe I'll carry on and taunt AZD into joining...
A similar argument is made about the 2nd. You know... "It was all muskets and breechloaders back then! The Founding Fathers could not be privy to the advances in technology!" In other words, the Amendment has become obsolete. Of course, I have argued against that statement so many times it needs no repeating. However, does the same concept still apply?
I know several (I just pick on AZD because I feel know him better than I know others) has described the Constitution as a contract, which by definition cannot be changed or altered outside of the proper channels to do so, such as an amendment. Others view it as some "living document" wherein the words contained change definition depending on the time and/or situation. How do we apply those same beliefs to this issue?
Surely Kelly brought up some very interesting points. Just previous to the introduction of the 14th in the early 1800's, the US was but the East coast and a blip of the Midwest. By the time the 14th rolled around and came into being, the US stretched from sea to shining sea. It nearly quadrupled in size, and there was a whole lot of land that needed occupying, a whole lot of indians needing killing, and a whole lot of area that needed defending. There are more people living in Cali now than in the whole of the US back in the mid 1800's, when the 14th came to be. Surely, I can see that loose immigration laws, or even the support and courting of mass immigration, was the order of the day.
Today, more people have immigrated within my lifetime than there were total Americans in the mid 1850's. Our pop has risen from the 35mm of then to the 330mm of now. Back then, you had to worry about poor Germans overloading a town's resources. Today, you have to worry about someone nuking the Hoover Dam. Things have certainly changed.
As one who went the route of "shall not infringe means shall not infringe", and absolutely believes that the 2nd was meant to protect ourselves from .gov, therefore we shall be afforded the opportunities to own weaponry greater than or equal to same, I'm not sure how to maintain the same integrity in beliefs. Granted, I almost never think or have thought about immigration... but you got me thinking.
Get rid of the all the illegals. No anchor babies, no nothing. Sick and tired of these damn hippies complaining that we don't allow others from ruined countries to come here so they have a "chance" at life....meanwhile USA is the "worst" country...pick a side of the fence, hippie.
Quote: FaceAs one who went the route of "shall not infringe means shall not infringe", and absolutely believes that the 2nd was meant to protect ourselves from .gov, therefore we shall be afforded the opportunities to own weaponry greater than or equal to same, I'm not sure how to maintain the same integrity in beliefs. Granted, I almost never think or have thought about immigration... but you got me thinking.
Just to be clear - you believe that the Second Amendment allows for an individual right to own a cruise missile, a functional tank, or an armed submarine?
If so, I'm awestruck.
Quote: Ayecarumba
Oddly, the same strife continues around the world today, and America is still a beacon of hope.
Do you even understand the argument?
All the 'melting pot' people came here
LEGALLY. Nobody wants tp stop LEGAL
immigration. Having an open border
will bankrupt us eventually.
Quote: EvenBob"Among developed nations, only the US and Canada still offer automatic citizenship to children born on their soil. Not a single European country follows the practice."Quote: TomGIf I am not a citizen by birth, would I be citizen of another country?
If no, how would this change anything
If yes, then my answer would really be based on what other country would accept me
It's not needed anymore, get rid of it.
I just figured out the problem: because people born in other countries aren't citizens, they are all being deported into the US. What we need to do is declare people who were born in the US to be illegal aliens and deport them to other countries. We would then be a country of only foreign born citizens, thus the entire problem would be solved.
Quote: harvson3Just to be clear - you believe that the Second Amendment allows for an individual right to own a cruise missile, a functional tank, or an armed submarine?
If so, I'm awestruck.
I'd be happy to clarify, however, not here. Leave the 14th thread unmolested. There's a previously existing gun thread that can be fired back up; perhaps I'll do so in a moment.
You know, if you just set up a system to spot check businesses and rendered a BIG ASS HONKING FINE on the BUSINESS (probably from the IRS) when you find just 1 illegal, you don't have to chase illegals around, or build a wall.
That's it. You don't need to bother to start deporting people all the time. You can just leave them be.
I predict illegal immigration will taper off naturally without all the hard work and uncertainty of this other stuff. Might take a few years. It would likely take some legislation.
If that's your goal anyway.
The money is in the status quo.Quote: rxwineIf that's your goal anyway.
The ptb don't want "it" fixed. Neither on the US side or on the Southern side. We are not in much danger of Canadians invading, lol.
If the TBTF wanted the illegals to self deport, they would only have to ISIS a few dozen [which would save many lives] and that giant whoosh sound Perot mentioned could be heard as far north as Denver.
Or we could just go to war with Mexico and confiscate their country and South America as far as Panama and no longer need to build a stupid fence.
Or, eliminate any minimum wage, and entitlements for everyone, outsource congress, and eliminate the EPA. Easy peezy. Nobody really wants it fixed. It is another illusion.
The final southern US border was eliminated when the NAFTA treaty was signed. Any illusion left is a wealth extraction tool used by the PTB.
We are all being PWND.
Everybody just keep worrying about what illegals or blacks or muzzies are doing and don't worry about the owners.
Oh, Oh, what did Caitlyn do? Deflategate puhlease, global warming pfft.

Quote: RonCJust what is the reason Trump can't do that and liberals can? I don't hear many of them defining who said what on every issue, yet you somehow think he should have said "who" in this case...
Quit grasping for false equivalences.
The "who" in this case is important, as he was clearly just B.S.ing and pulling stuff out of his butt.
Quote: EvenBobDo you even understand the argument?
All the 'melting pot' people came here
LEGALLY. Nobody wants tp stop LEGAL
immigration. Having an open border
will bankrupt us eventually.
By definition, the "Melting Pot" includes the illegals. Once the exclusionary immigration laws of the 1920's (that heavily favored Northern Europeans, and practically barred Asians) were replaced in the 1960's, immigration, both legal and illegal, has flowed and ebbed with our economy.
Many of us would not be here today, productive, tax paying, law abiding citizens if it wasn't for an ancestor who hopped on a boat, train, car or truck... without papers. Should we deport everyone who had an illegal immigrant ancestor? It's silly. Would we be a better country if we took the equivalent of the entire populations of New York City and Los Angeles and deported them?
Born in the U.S.A. makes you an American.
I might vote for that ;-!
Quote: ams288Quit grasping for false equivalences.
The "who" in this case is important, as he was clearly just B.S.ing and pulling stuff out of his butt.
What a pile of crap you are tossing out there...you are smart enough to know "experts" can be found on either side of most issues. They can make convincing arguments for their side.
No false equivalence...that is liberal-speak for "you got me!"...
Bruce Lee
Actress Diane Guerrero - Orange is the new Black
Alberto Gonzales - Attorney General for Bush
Marco Rubio
Henry Cejudo 2008 Olympic Gold wrestling
Pete Domenici Republican Senator NM
Quote: terapinedAmericans that might not have been Americans without birthright citizenship
Bruce Lee
Actress Diane Guerrero - Orange is the new Black
Alberto Gonzales - Attorney General for Bush
Marco Rubio
Henry Cejudo 2008 Olympic Gold wrestling
Pete Domenici Republican Senator NM
So what? I don't really care whether the amendment impacts a celebrity or not; I'm more concerned about whether or not the amendment is interpreted and used correctly. The definition of "interpreted and used correctly" is the issue; not what famous person it impacts.
Quote: RonC
No false equivalence...that is liberal-speak for "you got me!"...
No, it's not. It's always a losing argument when you just kind of throw your hands up and go "well, your side does it too!" and don't provide any examples.
Quote: ams288No, it's not. It's always a losing argument when you just kind of throw your hands up and go "well, your side does it too!" and don't provide any examples.
I don't have time to look them up, but it is easy enough to find experts on both sides of the issue that think they are right.
In this case, it is not a losing argument in the way it would be if I said "Hillary lies a lot" and you said "well, your side does it, too"...while there is no question either way, the point in that statement is that it is okay for Hillary to lie because some Republicans lie.
Politicians say a lot of things not backed up by the names of who they are talking about; that does not making the statement false. How much more boring would political speeches be if they had to list every expert every time?
Quote: RonCPoliticians say a lot of things not backed up by the names of who they are talking about; that does not making the statement false. How much more boring would political speeches be if they had to list every expert every time?
I agree that politicians say a lot of things backed up without specific names. But if they had to, they'd be able to go and get the actual names.
This case was particularly egregious, as there are not "many scholars" who would say that about the 14th amendment. Had someone pressed Trump right then and there, he wouldn't have been able to name one.
Quote:In this case, it is not a losing argument in the way it would be if I said "Hillary lies a lot" and you said "well, your side does it, too"...while there is no question either way, the point in that statement is that it is okay for Hillary to lie because some Republicans lie.
This example is shaky as I would never ever reply that way. You can call Hillary whatever you want, I don't care. I am not one to jump to defend her against Republican name calling. It's just in your nature to criticize her. Call her ugly, fat, old, lesbian, liar, war criminal, etc. I usually just ignore it.
Quote: ams288I agree that politicians say a lot of things backed up without specific names. But if they had to, they'd be able to go and get the actual names.
This case was particularly egregious, as there are not "many scholars" who would say that about the 14th amendment. Had someone pressed Trump right then and there, he wouldn't have been able to name one.
This example is shaky as I would never ever reply that way. You can call Hillary whatever you want, I don't care. I am not one to jump to defend her against Republican name calling. It's just in your nature to criticize her. Call her ugly, fat, old, lesbian, liar, war criminal, etc. I usually just ignore it.
"ugly, fat, old, liar, war criminal " ?
If RonC said any of that I missed it...
OK, liar might have come up, he might have mentioned that she was speaking ;-)
Quote: ams288I agree that politicians say a lot of things backed up without specific names. But if they had to, they'd be able to go and get the actual names.
Politicians often get caught not knowing, or remembering, the particulars. They simply come back later with the answer if they really have one. It doesn't make them liars or anything like that if they can prove it.
Quote: ams288This case was particularly egregious, as there are not "many scholars" who would say that about the 14th amendment. Had someone pressed Trump right then and there, he wouldn't have been able to name one.
Unless someone specifically asks Trump "what scholars?" and he provides no answer, even after giving time to check his notes, that would be different. It would also be different if it was proven that "many experts" did not exist. Why do you expect Trump to have a higher standard than other people for proving what he says?
Quote: RonCIn this case, it is not a losing argument in the way it would be if I said "Hillary lies a lot" and you said "well, your side does it, too"...while there is no question either way, the point in that statement is that it is okay for Hillary to lie because some Republicans lie.
Quote: ams288This example is shaky as I would never ever reply that way. You can call Hillary whatever you want, I don't care. I am not one to jump to defend her against Republican name calling. It's just in your nature to criticize her. Call her ugly, fat, old, lesbian, liar, war criminal, etc. I usually just ignore it.
You don't have to reply that way personally, I wasn't talking about your specific response...it is something that happens a lot in politics, whether you or I do it or not. The example is just fine.
That's a good question. I think Deez Nuts just needs more exposure. I don't think anyone has a handle on Deez Nuts' platform.Quote: GWAEWhere does deez nuts stand on the subject?
It must be frustrating to Deez Nuts to get very little attention. I say he needs to get out there and have a debate. Any debate, even a Republican-style mass debate would be a great relief for Deez Nuts.
A bigger question, in my mind, is who will he pick for a running mate? Since Deez is a relatively unknown, it would have to be someone big, neither left or right, but someone in the middle, and with one eye on foreign affairs. Someone who will snap to attention at a moment's notice.
What say you, WoV? Can you support Deez Nuts?
Quote: TwoFeathersATL"ugly, fat, old, liar, war criminal " ?
If RonC said any of that I missed it...
OK, liar might have come up, he might have mentioned that she was speaking ;-)
Wasn't specific to RonC.
Pretty sure I have seen righties on this board call her all of the above.
I don't care. Call her whatever you want. She will always be hated by the right. The day they start compimenting her I'll be worried...
Quote: ams288Wasn't specific to RonC.
Pretty sure I have seen righties on this board call her all of the above.
I don't care. Call her whatever you want. She will always be hated by the right. The day they start compimenting her I'll be worried...
She looked really good in orange!
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The line that was careful crafted to exclude children born of diplomats is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Even though they are lawfully in the US as diplomats
"Plyler v. Doe (1982)
Plyler v. Doe is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down a Texas statute that denied funding to local school districts for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such children. The Court held that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections and that since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of without a "compelling state interest” it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Justice Brennan added a footnote:
"And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”
So the Supremes seemed to say themselves that the children of illegal aliens were not "legally admitted" (making no distinction regarding where they were born) but Brennan added that they should be considered citizens.
That certainly doesn't sound like it was settled as few as 33 years ago...it also sounds like a ruling that could be subject to being overturned as far as the note goes.
So is there a path to denying citizenship to illegal aliens without a new amendment?
Oh...and I agree with the earlier poster...don't allow illegals to work, fine people who hire illegals, and the problem will handle itself. It will still require legislation and some kind of guest worker program most likely, but there would be no need to come over here if you can't get a job unless you just want to freeload or are a smuggler of some type.
Quote: Sabretom2As a true conservative, my opinion must stand with established law. The remedy is to secure the border and enforce imagination law. Selective inforcement of any law is a violation of any oath of office that contains "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".
Imaginary law, I like it : )
Quote: Sabretom2As a true conservative, my opinion must stand with established law. The remedy is to secure the border and enforce imagination law. Selective inforcement of any law is a violation of any oath of office that contains "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".
I agree, but that does not mean that the way the Amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court cannot change. Based on a few articles I read on it (no where near an exhaustive study at all), it may be that the earlier ruling left both sides of the issue in play. Don't forget that rulings have changed at times; not all "settled law" stays settled.
The Supremes are often confused; as in ruling Obamacare was a tax:
"The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the (Internal Revenue Service) through the normal means of taxation," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/politics/scotus-health-care-tax/
However, all bills raising revenues are supposed to originate in the House. The Senate took a House bill, stripped it of most of the guts, and made it Obamacare. Brilliant maneuver; but one they would not the other side to make...
I'm not saying anything will change with Obamacare; just that the Supremes have a lot to look at and sometimes change course...