Birth right citizenship

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna926081#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s

 

 

What......in the world?!

[bigbird 60,509]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna926081#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From %1%24s

 

 

What......in the world?!

While I disagree in principle and certainly do not agree with the method, I do think that there needs to some sort of stipulation/reform that dissuades non-citizens from crossing over to deliver in order to secure citizenship.  JMO

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

5 minutes ago, bigbird said:

While I disagree in principle and certainly do not agree with the method, I do think that there needs to some sort of stipulation/reform that dissuades non-citizens from crossing over to deliver in order to secure citizenship.  JMO

That's how 90% of the people in this country are here today. The thought of someone using an executive order to change something so fundamentaly intertwined with our constitution and history is awful. That is something that people should have a say in.

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

19 minutes ago, bigbird said:

While I disagree in principle and certainly do not agree with the method, I do think that there needs to some sort of stipulation/reform that dissuades non-citizens from crossing over to deliver in order to secure citizenship.  JMO

He's wrong about the executive order and act of Congress.  There are two SCOTUS precedents that state the 14th Amendment grants virtually anyone born here US citizenship. He'll sign the order, it will get shot down in the courts and we'll be back to needing a constitutional amendment.

[AU64 10,122]

11 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

That's how 90% of the people in this country are here today. The thought of someone using an executive order to change something so fundamentaly intertwined with our constitution and history is awful. That is something that people should have a say in.

 

Give us a link...that is nothing like the truth. 

In the history of our country,  immigrants did not sneak over the border illegally to have babies in the US in order to gain citizenship for the child and de facto citizenship for themselves.    

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

4 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Give us a link...that is nothing like the truth. 

In the history of our country,  immigrants did not sneak over the border illegally to have babies in the US in order to gain citizenship for the child and de facto citizenship for themselves.    

What are you ******* talking about? Everyone can be traced back to immigrants coming to this country and having children. Whether it was you parents or your great great great great grandparents. And if you want to go back to the beginning, we were a country founded by immigrants who forced their way into a country and took it. 

 

If the European settlers never came over here, most of us would never exist, in this country, as we know it. 

[bigbird 60,509]

21 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

That's how 90% of the people in this country are here today.

Is it?  I mean, yes there were points in our history where we were a country of immigrants.  However, those immigrants became natrualized and assimilated into the US of today. We are all, for the most part, descendents of immigrants. I get that and am happy for it.  That said, at some point you cease to be an immigrant. What I don't like and what I think needs to be addressed, is non-citizens that are not looking at naturalization but seem to only be looking for the benefits of citizenship for their babies and the advantages that affords.

 

21 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

The thought of someone using an executive order to change something so fundamentaly intertwined with our constitution and history is awful. That is something that people should have a say in.

 

Completely agree. A misstep that will not be upheld....or shouldn't be.

[AU64 10,122]

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He's wrong about the executive order and act of Congress.  There are two SCOTUS precedents that state the 14th Amendment grants virtually anyone born here US citizenship. He'll sign the order, it will get shot down in the courts and we'll be back to needing a constitutional amendment.

You are right of course but the 14th Amendment did not anticipate the current situation.  It was written post Civil War as a means of giving citizenship and voting rights to former slaves.   And JMO but not gonna be any constitutional conventions any time soon to address any controversial issue.

But as noted, all of us, except Elizabeth Warren are offspring of people who immigrated here at some point in our histories. . 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, AU64 said:

You are right of course but the 14th Amendment did not anticipate the current situation.  It was written post Civil War as a means of giving citizenship and voting rights to former slaves.   And JMO but not gonna be any constitutional conventions any time soon to address any controversial issue.

But as noted, all of us, except Elizabeth Warren are offspring of people who immigrated here at some point in our histories. . 

Maybe it didn't.  Of course, you are using the same logic about this amendment that gun control advocates make about the 2nd Amendment - that it couldn't anticipate semi-auto and automatic weapons with the kind of firepower and capacity they have now, in an era of single shot muskets that had to be carefully reloaded with powder, packed down and so on.

But our constitution was meant to force slow change and require consensus for major decisions.  Conservatives have long (and rightfully) bitched about liberals skirting the legislative options, especially constitutional amendments, to force societal changes through the courts.  This is just another version of the same thing, just using executive orders instead of courts.

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

You are right of course but the 14th Amendment did not anticipate the current situation.  It was written post Civil War as a means of giving citizenship and voting rights to former slaves.   And JMO but not gonna be any constitutional conventions any time soon to address any controversial issue.

But as noted, all of us, except Elizabeth Warren are offspring of people who immigrated here at some point in our histories. . 

What exactly is the current situation? So two people come over here illegally, they have a child, that child is a citizen, goes to school in the U.S., graduates, parcipates in our economy, marries someone else living in this country, and has children and it repeats. 

Whats the problem? What has that child done to not deserve to be accepted by this country as one of it's own? 

[AU64 10,122]

3 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

What are you ******* talking about? Everyone can be traced back to immigrants coming to this country and having children. Whether it was you parents or your great great great great grandparents. And if you want to go back to the beginning, we were a country founded by immigrants who forced their way into a country and took it. 

 

If the European settlers never came over here, most of us would never exist, in this country, as we know it. 

Not everything stays the same.....and because something happened or was legal in the past does not mean that it must be that way forever.  This issue is not being addressed correctly and it's not gonna chance so calm yourself.

But it's like the campaign by many dems for open borders (which we once had) to allow anyone who wants to move to the US to just "come on in".  And as for the country existing "as we know it".....if we just allow open immigration with no procedures or basic qualifications, it won't exist as we know if within  another generation or so.  JMO

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Maybe it didn't.  Of course, you are using the same logic about this amendment that gun control advocates make about the 2nd Amendment - that it couldn't anticipate semi-auto and automatic weapons with the kind of firepower and capacity they have now, in an era of single shot muskets that had to be carefully reloaded with powder, packed down and so on.

But our constitution was meant to force slow change and require consensus for major decisions.  Conservatives have long (and rightfully) bitched about liberals skirting the legislative options, especially constitutional amendments, to force societal changes through the courts.  This is just another version of the same thing, just using executive orders instead of courts.

Funny how the whole "always follow the constitution how it was written" argument can shape shift, depending on the argument and arguer.

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Not everything stays the same.....and because something happened or was legal in the past does not mean that it must be that way forever.  This issue is not being addressed correctly and it's not gonna chance so calm yourself.

But it's like the campaign by many dems for open borders (which we once had) to allow anyone who wants to move to the US to just "come on in".  And as for the country existing "as we know it".....if we just allow open immigration with no procedures or basic qualifications, it won't exist as we know if within  another generation or so.  JMO

I don't know of any main stream Democrats that just want chaos with illegal immigrantion. Most just don't want what happened earlier this year to happen, when you start ripping families apart and throwing people back in their home counties. 

[AU64 10,122]

2 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

What exactly is the current situation? So two people come over here illegally, they have a child, that child is a citizen, goes to school in the U.S., graduates, parcipates in our economy, marries someone else living in this country, and has children and it repeats. 

Whats the problem? What has that child done to not deserve to be accepted by this country as one of it's own? 

So how about another story?

One pregnant person comes over here illegally, goes on welfare, has a child who grows up poor and joins MS13 and after killing a couple other immigrant children he ends up in prison for 30 years at public expense and meanwhile the mother continues to live on welfare and produces additional children....some of whom have successful lives and others continue the welfare cycle for multiple generations. 

Just saying....it ain't all sweet music and roses. 

 

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

So how about another story?

One pregnant person comes over here illegally, goes on welfare, has a child who grows up poor and joins MS13 and after killing a couple other immigrant children he ends up in prison for 30 years at public expense and meanwhile the mother continues to live on welfare and produces additional children....some of whom have successful lives and others continue the welfare cycle for multiple generations. 

Just saying....it ain't all sweet music and roses. 

 

I mean I know that. But it's not the norm. So I'm not going to base my whole philosophy on the situation on outliers. 

My story,

My father came over here from Greece, to have surgery at UAB, do to an athletic injury. Didn't sneak over here. Had legal documentation. Met my mother who was born in the U.S. Didn't get his citizenship until long after I was born. I grew up in this country as a citizen, joined the military, served in a war, went to Auburn, got a degree, work in this country as a professional, pay my taxes, never committed a crime. 

Now I'm guessing that you probably feel like I deserve citizenship, due to my mother being a citizen when I was born. But what if she wasn't. What if everything about that story stayed the same except that my mother was a legal citizen of, let's say, Japan. Knowing what you know about me and what I've done in this country, would you say that I wouldn't deserve to be accepted as a citzen over someone who was born here, their parents are citizens, and they commit crimes and have never paid taxes or done anything positive for this country?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

28 minutes ago, AU64 said:

So how about another story?

One pregnant person comes over here illegally, goes on welfare, has a child who grows up poor and joins MS13 and after killing a couple other immigrant children he ends up in prison for 30 years at public expense and meanwhile the mother continues to live on welfare and produces additional children....some of whom have successful lives and others continue the welfare cycle for multiple generations. 

Just saying....it ain't all sweet music and roses. 

 

This is such an extreme example.  There are far, far more natural born citizens who are poor and are a part of gangs than illegal immigrants.  Cmon man.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is such an extreme example.  There are far, far more natural born citizens who are poor and are a part of gangs than illegal immigrants.  Cmon man.

Of course. There's far more natural citizens. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Of course. There's far more natural citizens. 

Then we all agree that the whole MS13 example is extreme and not the norm. So why is Trump wasting his time on it? Why isn't he working to fix things that are actually a serious problem? Like politically motivated terrorist attacks.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Then we all agree that the whole MS13 example is extreme and not the norm. So why is Trump wasting his time on it? Why isn't he working to fix things that are actually a serious problem? Like politically motivated terrorist attacks.

I was responding to Brad. You're free to butt-in, but I am not reviving the same debate that is ongoing in two different threads. We've beat this horse dead.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

I do not see such an EO passing constitutional muster. I suppose the argument would, in part, hinge on the interpretation of the latter part of the clause, and whether or not it has an attributed meaning or is merely superfluous. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

48 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I don't know of any main stream Democrats that just want chaos with illegal immigrantion. Most just don't want what happened earlier this year to happen, when you start ripping families apart and throwing people back in their home counties. 

Obama deported illegals at an unprecedented level. Go look it up for yourself. You speak from pure emotion. I am sure you weren't complaining then. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I was responding to Brad. You're free to butt-in, but I am not reviving the same debate that is ongoing in two different threads. We've beat this horse dead.

This is a whole new topic, friend. You don't have to mention anything about the attacks. Insert any other serious issue that you want. The point of that question was to inquire as to why he's spending his time and very little energy on such issues.

[AuCivilEng1 11,003]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Obama deported illegals at an unprecedented level. Go look it up for yourself. You speak from pure emotion. I am sure you weren't complaining then. 

Exactly my point. I was responding to a comment that the Democrats just want to " let them all in". The fact that the Obama administration deported illegals at such a high rate proves that that comment on the Democrats isnt true. Thanks for pointing that out.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

This is a whole new topic, friend. You don't have to mention anything about the attacks. Insert any other serious issue that you want. The point of that question was to inquire as to why he's spending his time and very little energy on such issues.

We've failed on immigration. Hell, we literally leave laws untouched for 27+ years and then wonder why programs go extinct. 

[AUDub 11,147]

10 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I do not see such an EO passing constitutional muster. I suppose the argument would, in part, hinge on the interpretation of the latter part of the clause, and whether or not it has an attributed meaning or is merely superfluous.