| Author |
|
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 10:55am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| It's not really a good idea to address a problem by saying "Well, it's only a SMALL problem." |
|
|
It's not a good idea to amend the Constitution to address a small problem, either, which is the only way to eliminate birthright citizenship. Whatever so-called "anchor babies" cost the United States, even attempting to amend the Constitution will cost far more.
Such an attempt will never succeed. And while it's being attempted, the racial climate in this country will turn into even more of a toxic waste dump as everybody who supports such an amendment insists they aren't racist, while making common cause with racists. |
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2230
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 11:06am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
David>>It's not a good idea to amend the Constitution to address a small problem,<< Does it have to be? (That's an actual question, I'm no lawyer). We have plenty of laws that do not require a change of the constitution, just that they be constitutional. The term "Natural Born" can apply to people born abroad (Like Ted Cruz), can the interpretation not be amended by simple regulation?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133551
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 11:08am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Such an attempt will never succeed. And while it's being attempted, the racial climate in this country will turn into even more of a toxic waste dump as everybody who supports such an amendment insists they aren't racist, while making common cause with racists. ••• Your own "cause" must be very weak, if you have to resort to mud slinging to defend it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Wilders
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 December 2008
Posts: 183
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 11:26am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
"We have plenty of laws that do not require a change of the constitution, just that they be constitutional."
A law cannot contradict the express language of the constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment provides that anyone born in the United States shall be a citizen. So, it would require amendment.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 12:11pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Conrad: The issue of Birthright Citizenship is distinct from Natural Born Citizenship. Birthright Citizenship derives from the Fourteenth Amendment: "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." Outside of cranks, the meaning of those words is plain, and would require a constitutional amendment.
Natural Born Citizenship derives from Article II: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." While the debate over it's meaning has largely been driven by cranks, at least there is some interpretive breathing space. However, none of the recent debates have any thing to do honest interpretation.
John: It's not mudslinging to observe that the loudest voices in favor of eliminating Birthright Citizenship are outright racists. Go over to National Review and read the comments on any of their stories on the issue. Listen to Donald Trump talk about Mexicans. If I found myself agreeing with one of those animals on anything, I'd question my beliefs about everything (it's already happened with Trump and health care reform).
Literally every single person I know who claims the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of Southern heritage and resistance to tyranny insist they don't have a racist bone in their body. I'll take their word for it, but that doesn't change that they're making common cause with the Ku Klux Klan.
Amending the 14th Amendment will not happen. Any attempt will be interpreted by many as an attack on African Americans. And for many of the supporters, it will be. And for what? It would take decades before the savings on "anchor babies" being eliminated comes close to the financial cost of passing an amendment. Reprinting every civics text isn't going to be free.
Finally, I like living in a country with an open door policy. In a word, it's American.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2230
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 12:21pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Brad>>A law cannot contradict the express language of the constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment provides that anyone born in the United States shall be a citizen. So, it would require amendment. << Interesting. There are exceptions in the interpretation, no? For instance, if a foreign ambassador or embassy staff has a child in the US (presumably in a US hospital), the child is not a US citizen, correct? It's sort of the reverse of the Ted Cruz situation, where being born abroad to non-ambassadorial US citizens outside US jurisdiction still counts as "natural born," but two Mexican citizens having a child in the US has a different rule. What happens to a child if the parents don't want tm to be a US Citizen? BTW, read Section 2 of the XIV amendment. Lots of "Male" happening in the language.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
James Reese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 July 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 12:39pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
the racial climate in this country will turn into even more of a toxic waste dump as everybody who supports such an amendment insists they aren't racist, while making common cause with racists.
***
Which race would be persecuted in this scenario?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 12:45pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Are you joking?
Hispanics. Blacks. The GOP has found a two-fer.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brad Wilders
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 December 2008
Posts: 183
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 12:46pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I believe that children born to diplomats are one of the exceptions because the amendment applies only to "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Diplomatic immunity means diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Not sure that applies to lower-level embassy staff. Illegal immigrants, present in the country, are subject to the laws of the United States.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133551
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 12:48pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Which race would be persecuted in this scenario?++++ Are you joking? Hispanics. Blacks. The GOP has found a two-fer. •• Then, a racist is someone who supports a law that would affect EVERYONE, while a non-racist is someone who assumes such a law is targeting Blacks and Hispanics? Did I step thru the Looking Glass again?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
David Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 3117
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 1:01pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| Then, a racist is someone who supports a law that would affect EVERYONE, while a non-racist is someone who assumes such a law is targeting Blacks and Hispanics? |
|
|
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying non-racists, for non-racists reasons, who support repealing the 14th Amendment, are joining a movement led by racists since 1868.
Saying it affects all Americans equally is like saying gays had the freedom to marry anyone of the opposite sex they wanted.
Repealing the 14th Amendment would be an enormous symbolic defeat for African Americans -- and the entire country. It would be interpreted as such by African Americans and by racists alike. Its repeal has been an agenda item for racists since its passage, and I don't think the cost-benefit ratio justifies the damage.
As we've seen in Texas and Arizona, anti-immigration sure seems to mix effortlessly with Anti-Hispanic racism. Anti-immigration enforcement has lead to laws forcing American citizens with Hispanic names or Latin features to carry passports or risk detention. Again, I don't think the cost-benefit ratio justifies the damage.
Are you telling me Donald Trump is not targeting Hispanics with this? That would be news to him, I'm sure.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
James Reese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 18 July 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 434
|
| Posted: 19 August 2015 at 1:12pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Are you joking?
Hispanics. Blacks.
***
One of these isn't a race. One of these things is an ethnic group.
Here's some Flama videos on YouTube that are both humorous and educational.
5 Misconceptions about Latinos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpeYP8CqTmY
Things White Latinos Are Sick Of Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdbEMBmzo2U
Things Black Latinos Are Sick Of Hearing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3kenaY8rlw
Enjoy!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
