Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 79

Thread: Ending Birthright Citizenship

  1. #21
    Platinum
    Reputation
    21
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,110
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Holy crap there's white people coming in under this loophole, shut it down.
    https://www.foxnews.com/us/citizensh...-birth-tourism

    https://vdare.com/posts/sinister-whi...ht-citizenship

  2. #22
    Diamond Mintjewlips's Avatar
    Reputation
    -1094
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    6,681
    Load Metric
    65687257
    I've always disagreed with The President's stance on immigration, this especially, but I still think hes playing great. I see the reasoning behind this, and this pretty much puts him at a 99% chance of running again in 2020, unless kanye runs, I'll still support his candidacy...
    "Druff would suck his own dick if it were long enough"- Brandon "drexel" Gerson

    "ann coulter literally has more common sense than pfa."-Sonatine

    "Real grinders supports poker fraud"- Ray Davis


    "DRILLED HER GOOD"- HONGKONGER

  3. #23
    100% Organic MumblesBadly's Avatar
    Reputation
    94
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    In the many threads of this forum
    Posts
    9,408
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by Daly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post

    Any conservative who hasn’t already abandoned Trump over the shit he’s already pulled won’t likely even blink at this latest shenanigan.
    It’s Unconstitutional. End of story.

    You can support the tightening up the boarders and oppose ending birthright citizenship. Bravo for Paul Ryan for stepping up and opting the notion that this is even possible.

    Of course this is all mid term posturing at this point, but we shall see if he continues with this.
    Ryan hasn’t really ever strongly defended Trump, so it’s not like he was really in his camp. And he has tried at times to distance himself from Trump only to lose influence over others in the party. But given his desire to lead the party if Trump can be marginalized, it’s not surprising that he would use this as an opportunity to get some daylight from Trump in this case given that his electoral constituents aren’t likely to care about “anchor babies” as much as voters in the red states.
    _____________________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    I actually hope this [second impeachment] succeeds, because I want Trump put down politically like a sick, 14-year-old dog. ... I don't want him complicating the 2024 primary season. I just want him done.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Were Republicans cowardly or unethical not to go along with [convicting Trump in the second impeachment Senate trial]? No. The smart move was to reject it.

  4. #24
    Platinum duped_samaritan's Avatar
    Reputation
    689
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,680
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by MumblesBadly View Post
    And he has tried at times to distance himself from Trump only to lose influence over others in the party. But given his desire to lead the party if Trump can be marginalized, it’s not surprising that he would use this as an opportunity to get some daylight from Trump in this case given that his electoral constituents aren’t likely to care about “anchor babies” as much as voters in the red states.
    Ryan is retiring in Jan.

    I wouldn't be surprised if he has a giant skeleton in his closet and is terrified of giving anyone a good reason to look for it.
    Would explain a lot.

     
    Comments
      
      splitthis: A giant penis in his closet

  5. #25
    Gold anonamoose's Avatar
    Reputation
    127
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,038
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post
    I understand the 14th amendment is key here...

    "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," the 1868 amendment begins.


    thus the requirements for citizenship are two: 1. born in the United States or naturalized; and 2. subject to the jurisdiction of the United State.

    A child of a person here temporarily because of tourism or illegal entry might not be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US

    its up to the courts to decide...
    it's not up to the courts decide actually, anyone born in the us under any circumstance becomes a US citizen, that's why this is an issue. You get tourist pregnancies where you get people that apply for tourist visas, get pregnant, then come to the US. I saw a guy in the US consulate the other day that his parents did this and he was trying to revoke his US citizenship. Literally just 2 days ago I saw this.

    The amendment is stupid, just like everything else you have to look at this in the context it was written. It was written during a time where someone couldn't hop on a plane, visit a place for 3 days, then hop on a plane home. It was written for the purpose of ensuring former slave's children could be guaranteed citizenship. During a time where you took a 1 month voyage from Europe on a ship, and several weeks to get wherever you're going in the US, and same going back. The amendment really is silly. It doesn't need to be an amendment it needs to be a regulated process.

  6. #26
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Honestly, I've always found birthright citizenship to be odd.

    Why should the location your parents are physically standing in at the time of your birth determine your citizenship?

    If you think about it logically (ignoring the current argument of what the Constitution does or does not say), your citizenship should be a product of two factors:

    1) The citizenship of your parents

    2) The country where your parents currently live

    But #2 should only be considered when your parents are established in that foreign country legally. Otherwise your birth is placing an unintended and unfair burden upon that country. Immigration control is largely resource control. If your parents snuck in and you happen to be born on that country's soil, you shouldn't have any "rights" to that country, just as you shouldn't if your parents are temporarily visiting that country as tourists.

    Another factor being mostly ignored here comes from the fact that illegal immigrant related crime often comes from the second generation. In most cases, those who are risking a lot to come here are ernestly looking for work and a better life, and aren't interested in committing crimes. However, their children are a different story. Whether born here or brought here as children, these kids don't have the same appreciation for the value of hard work and building a better life, and instead tend to grow up in areas filled with criminal elements, and are easily influenced in that direction. I don't fear the 35-year-old woman who crosses the border to work in the fields or as a cleaning lady. I fear her 15-year-old son, especially after he ages a few more years.

    In short, I don't see anything wrong with, "If you were born here because your parents snuck into this country, you should have the same citizenship as they do."

  7. #27
    Platinum GrenadaRoger's Avatar
    Reputation
    448
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,635
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by anonamoose View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post
    I understand the 14th amendment is key here...

    "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," the 1868 amendment begins.


    thus the requirements for citizenship are two: 1. born in the United States or naturalized; and 2. subject to the jurisdiction of the United State.

    A child of a person here temporarily because of tourism or illegal entry might not be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US

    its up to the courts to decide...
    it's not up to the courts decide actually, anyone born in the us under any circumstance becomes a US citizen, that's why this is an issue. You get tourist pregnancies where you get people that apply for tourist visas, get pregnant, then come to the US. I saw a guy in the US consulate the other day that his parents did this and he was trying to revoke his US citizenship. Literally just 2 days ago I saw this.

    The amendment is stupid, just like everything else you have to look at this in the context it was written. It was written during a time where someone couldn't hop on a plane, visit a place for 3 days, then hop on a plane home. It was written for the purpose of ensuring former slave's children could be guaranteed citizenship. During a time where you took a 1 month voyage from Europe on a ship, and several weeks to get wherever you're going in the US, and same going back. The amendment really is silly. It doesn't need to be an amendment it needs to be a regulated process.
    One other bit of historical context to add to the mix: the welfare state the US has moved to become since 1930 (especially after 1964)...easy immigration/citizenship can't be afforded now when a lifetime of government support is guaranteed
    Last edited by GrenadaRoger; 11-01-2018 at 11:20 PM.
    (long before there was a PFA i had my Grenade & Crossbones avatar at DD)

  8. #28
    Master of Props Daly's Avatar
    Reputation
    2671
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,305
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Honestly, I've always found birthright citizenship to be odd.

    Why should the location your parents are physically standing in at the time of your birth determine your citizenship?

    If you think about it logically (ignoring the current argument of what the Constitution does or does not say), your citizenship should be a product of two factors:

    1) The citizenship of your parents

    2) The country where your parents currently live

    But #2 should only be considered when your parents are established in that foreign country legally. Otherwise your birth is placing an unintended and unfair burden upon that country. Immigration control is largely resource control. If your parents snuck in and you happen to be born on that country's soil, you shouldn't have any "rights" to that country, just as you shouldn't if your parents are temporarily visiting that country as tourists.

    Another factor being mostly ignored here comes from the fact that illegal immigrant related crime often comes from the second generation. In most cases, those who are risking a lot to come here are ernestly looking for work and a better life, and aren't interested in committing crimes. However, their children are a different story. Whether born here or brought here as children, these kids don't have the same appreciation for the value of hard work and building a better life, and instead tend to grow up in areas filled with criminal elements, and are easily influenced in that direction. I don't fear the 35-year-old woman who crosses the border to work in the fields or as a cleaning lady. I fear her 15-year-old son, especially after he ages a few more years.

    In short, I don't see anything wrong with, "If you were born here because your parents snuck into this country, you should have the same citizenship as they do."
    Law of the land is you were born here you are a citizen regardless of how smart/stupid it is. You don’t want to start the proces of having the government be able to remove citizenship based on what they think their definition is at the current time.

    What is the next way they will strip citizenship?

  9. #29
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by Daly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Honestly, I've always found birthright citizenship to be odd.

    Why should the location your parents are physically standing in at the time of your birth determine your citizenship?

    If you think about it logically (ignoring the current argument of what the Constitution does or does not say), your citizenship should be a product of two factors:

    1) The citizenship of your parents

    2) The country where your parents currently live

    But #2 should only be considered when your parents are established in that foreign country legally. Otherwise your birth is placing an unintended and unfair burden upon that country. Immigration control is largely resource control. If your parents snuck in and you happen to be born on that country's soil, you shouldn't have any "rights" to that country, just as you shouldn't if your parents are temporarily visiting that country as tourists.

    Another factor being mostly ignored here comes from the fact that illegal immigrant related crime often comes from the second generation. In most cases, those who are risking a lot to come here are ernestly looking for work and a better life, and aren't interested in committing crimes. However, their children are a different story. Whether born here or brought here as children, these kids don't have the same appreciation for the value of hard work and building a better life, and instead tend to grow up in areas filled with criminal elements, and are easily influenced in that direction. I don't fear the 35-year-old woman who crosses the border to work in the fields or as a cleaning lady. I fear her 15-year-old son, especially after he ages a few more years.

    In short, I don't see anything wrong with, "If you were born here because your parents snuck into this country, you should have the same citizenship as they do."
    Law of the land is you were born here you are a citizen regardless of how smart/stupid it is. You don’t want to start the proces of having the government be able to remove citizenship based on what they think their definition is at the current time.

    What is the next way they will strip citizenship?
    As Grenada Roger pointed out, the 14th Amendment isn't as clear on that as many are claiming.

    Anyway, there isn't a gray area here.

    Born to US citizen parent? You're a citizen.

    Born to non-citizen parents who have official permission to live in the country legally? You're a citizen.

    Born to non-citizen parents who are here illegally or as tourists? You're not a citizen.

    Seems fair and straightforward to me.

     
    Comments
      
      IamGreek: This is how it is supposed to be interpreted imo

  10. #30
    Platinum
    Reputation
    414
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,275
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by duped_samaritan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Texter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by duped_samaritan View Post
    Guys guys! The president told a lie!


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/u...p_id=693823800
    I like the way they worded that to make it sound like most of Europe (many others in the Western Hemisphere) was included when no European country allows it. Very clever.
    u dum

    Name:  
Views: 
Size:

    Countries Who Offer Birthright Citizenship
    1 Antigua and Barbuda
    2 Argentina
    3 Barbados
    4 Belize
    5 Bolivia
    6 Brazil
    7 Canada
    8 Chile
    9 Cuba
    10 Dominica
    11 Ecuador
    12 El Salvador
    13 Fiji
    14 Grenada
    15 Guatemala
    16 Guyana
    17 Honduras
    18 Jamaica
    19 Mexico
    20 Nicaragua
    21 Panama
    22 Paraguay
    23 Peru
    24 Saint Kitts and Nevis
    25 Saint Lucia
    26 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    27 Trinidad and Tobago
    28 United States
    29 Uruguay
    30 Venezuela

    I am dumb but that’s what makes it clever, dummies like me see western and assume Europe and the Americas.

    Wow...a bunch of underdeveloped places almost no one wants to migrate to....so they probably have no issue.

  11. #31
    Gold MrTickle's Avatar
    Reputation
    429
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,721
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daly View Post

    Law of the land is you were born here you are a citizen regardless of how smart/stupid it is. You don’t want to start the proces of having the government be able to remove citizenship based on what they think their definition is at the current time.

    What is the next way they will strip citizenship?
    As Grenada Roger pointed out, the 14th Amendment isn't as clear on that as many are claiming.

    Anyway, there isn't a gray area here.

    Born to US citizen parent? You're a citizen.

    Born to non-citizen parents who have official permission to live in the country legally? You're a citizen.

    Born to non-citizen parents who are here illegally or as tourists? You're not a citizen.

    Seems fair and straightforward to me.
    What about non-citizen parents in the US as exchange students for a year?

  12. #32
    Feelin' Stronger Every Day tony bagadonuts's Avatar
    Reputation
    558
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,517
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by Daly View Post
    I’m a supporter of the right in general. More so on fiscal issues than social ones. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.

    Your mom makes it here - you born here - you are a citizen - end of story

    If you are a conservative and have been generally supportive of Trump this is an issue where you draw the line IMHO.
    Why? He's right. Hamfisted and obnoxious but still right. Birthright citizenship is a loophole that has been exploited for years, the 14th amendment was to protect the citizenship of slaves. Native Americans weren't even granted universal citizenship until the 1920s.

    Yes I know we have precedent from court cases long ago supporting the current standard, but the current standard is ludicrous and should be adjusted by either a court challenge ending in a SCOTUS ruling ( subject to the jurisdiction thereof) or constitutional amendment.

  13. #33
    Platinum
    Reputation
    21
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,110
    Load Metric
    65687257
    The GOP does the opposite of what they say they're doing.
    First
    Why should we care about immigration? It's so we can have safe and prosperous communities.

    The only way to fix immigration is change the 1965 law everything else is bullshit. Since they didn't change it like promised we had a record amount of immigration.
    So they already fucked us, now they're making it worse by causing major division.

    I used to be amazed at how safe Mexican
    communities used to be for whites, now you know tension has to be real high and you def don't want to be alone after dark.

    Ask yourself if any of these GOP proposals make Americans safer or do they increase the chance of violence.

    Ask yourself if this is for the general welfare of Americans or just a kickback to their border facility donors.
    The proposal in the OP won't happen.

    Trump's pushing for extended family detention, much longer.

    Sending troops to the border to face off with poverty stricken immigrants.

    He's proposing tent city's to house immigrants.

    Now he's using a one mentally ill killer to demonize all Mexicans.



    I used to know an ex gang member from El Salvador, I heard he's killed people in his country.

    Here he was very nice guy, cool as fuck, i'd trust him w my life. It's the financial hell from right wing govts that our CIA installs that create the condition for gangs and violence.sh..

    Summary
    So the GOP brought in a record amount of refugees and stoked tensions as much as humanly possible, nice.
    #winning


    I gotta go but yea, the alt right were the suckers. I see what they're doing now, more on that later.

  14. #34
    Master of Props Daly's Avatar
    Reputation
    2671
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,305
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daly View Post

    Law of the land is you were born here you are a citizen regardless of how smart/stupid it is. You don’t want to start the proces of having the government be able to remove citizenship based on what they think their definition is at the current time.

    What is the next way they will strip citizenship?
    As Grenada Roger pointed out, the 14th Amendment isn't as clear on that as many are claiming.

    Anyway, there isn't a gray area here.

    Born to US citizen parent? You're a citizen.

    Born to non-citizen parents who have official permission to live in the country legally? You're a citizen.

    Born to non-citizen parents who are here illegally or as tourists? You're not a citizen.

    Seems fair and straightforward to me.
    Except it’s not how in practice the way it’s been since the dawn of time. You are giving the government the ability to strip away citizenship in a way never done before. It’s dangerous.

    Can’t cling to the constitution and the way it’s been interpreted for 200+ years and suddenly decide to start making changes.

  15. #35
    Master of Props Daly's Avatar
    Reputation
    2671
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,305
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daly View Post
    I’m a supporter of the right in general. More so on fiscal issues than social ones. This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.

    Your mom makes it here - you born here - you are a citizen - end of story

    If you are a conservative and have been generally supportive of Trump this is an issue where you draw the line IMHO.
    Why? He's right. Hamfisted and obnoxious but still right. Birthright citizenship is a loophole that has been exploited for years, the 14th amendment was to protect the citizenship of slaves. Native Americans weren't even granted universal citizenship until the 1920s.

    Yes I know we have precedent from court cases long ago supporting the current standard, but the current standard is ludicrous and should be adjusted by either a court challenge ending in a SCOTUS ruling ( subject to the jurisdiction thereof) or constitutional amendment.
    Well I agree with you on one count - if there is to be a change it should come via the judicial, not the executive.

  16. #36
    Canadrunk limitles's Avatar
    Reputation
    1650
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    In Todd's head
    Posts
    17,648
    Blog Entries
    1
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post

    One other bit of historical context to add to the mix: the welfare state the US has moved to become since 1930 (especially after 1964)...easy immigration/citizenship can't be afforded now when at lifetime of government support is guarantee

  17. #37
    Platinum Jayjami's Avatar
    Reputation
    879
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    South Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    3,164
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger View Post
    I understand the 14th amendment is key here...

    "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," the 1868 amendment begins.


    thus the requirements for citizenship are two: 1. born in the United States or naturalized; and 2. subject to the jurisdiction of the United State.

    A child of a person here temporarily because of tourism or illegal entry might not be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the US

    its up to the courts to decide...
    This argument is absolutely asinine. Under this arguement, any alien in the United States could not be prosecuted for any crimes committed while they are here. How could they be if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United Stated criminal courts? The only people exempt therefrom are ambassadors and royalty, who have diplomatic immunity.

    There are strong arguments for and against birthright citizenship, but only a Constitutional amendment can change it.
    Last edited by Jayjami; 11-01-2018 at 09:39 AM.

  18. #38
    Silver
    Reputation
    152
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    659
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Throwing red meat to the base.

    Trump sets the agenda, the media laps it up, and then we all talk about it.

    There is a time and place to talk about this, but it isn't 2 weeks before the mid-term.

  19. #39
    Diamond TheXFactor's Avatar
    Reputation
    1199
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,935
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Fred Trump = immigrant
    Donald = anchor baby
    Melania = immigrant
    Barron = anchor baby
    Melania’s parents = chain migration
    Ivana = immigrant
    Don Jr = anchor baby
    Eric = anchor baby
    Ivanka = anchor baby

    Is it too late to send them back?


  20. #40
    Platinum duped_samaritan's Avatar
    Reputation
    689
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,680
    Load Metric
    65687257
    Quote Originally Posted by TheXFactor View Post
    Fred Trump = immigrant
    Donald = anchor baby
    Melania = immigrant
    Barron = anchor baby
    Melania’s parents = chain migration
    Ivana = immigrant
    Don Jr = anchor baby
    Eric = anchor baby
    Ivanka = anchor baby

    Is it too late to send them back?

    Barrons father is US Citizen (obviously), so, so is he.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Crazy Las Vegas police chase with movie-style ending
    By big dick in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 07-23-2018, 07:33 AM
  2. Replies: 257
    Last Post: 11-19-2017, 03:43 PM
  3. Fairy tale ending': Owl saved after high-speed collision with truck
    By Baron Von Strucker in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 11:54 AM
  4. breaking bad ending
    By mulva in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-11-2013, 04:13 PM